#1
Conspiracy JFK Forum
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
(13) During interrogation, Oswald put himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.
This is a rather outrageous untruth that Bugliosi is making here. It's true that Oswald was possibly one of the last to leave the 6th floor, sometime around 12 noon, where he was working that day - but he was seen by others, such as Arnold, on the first or second floor after 12 noon.
That Bugliosi has to lie to make his case shows just how weak these '53 Reasons' are.
Take careful note of the fact that "Honest" Patrick won't dare to defend this lie, nor call it a lie on Bugliosi's part. So much for "honesty."
This is a rather outrageous untruth that Bugliosi is making here. It's true that Oswald was possibly one of the last to leave the 6th floor, sometime around 12 noon, where he was working that day - but he was seen by others, such as Arnold, on the first or second floor after 12 noon.
That Bugliosi has to lie to make his case shows just how weak these '53 Reasons' are.
Take careful note of the fact that "Honest" Patrick won't dare to defend this lie, nor call it a lie on Bugliosi's part. So much for "honesty."
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
Anyone notice that my prediction that "Honest" Patrick won't dare to defend this lie was absolutely correct?
I rather suspect that the way to force Patrick into absolute silence is to keep the refutations short and to the point... that way, there's nothing for Patrick, or any other believer... to spin.
Or lie about...
I rather suspect that the way to force Patrick into absolute silence is to keep the refutations short and to the point... that way, there's nothing for Patrick, or any other believer... to spin.
Or lie about...
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
(11-07-2016, 10:47 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (13) During interrogation, Oswald put himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.
This is a rather outrageous untruth that Bugliosi is making here. It's true that Oswald was possibly one of the last to leave the 6th floor, sometime around 12 noon, where he was working that day - but he was seen by others, such as Arnold, on the first or second floor after 12 noon.
That Bugliosi has to lie to make his case shows just how weak these '53 Reasons' are.
Take careful note of the fact that "Honest" Patrick won't dare to defend this lie, nor call it a lie on Bugliosi's part. So much for "honesty."
Quote:During interrogation, Oswald put himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.
If Bugliosi made this claim he is wrong. Oswald said he was in the first floor lunch room.
What page in RH is this claim made...?
This post was last modified: 12-10-2016, 05:47 PM by Ben Holmes.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
(12-10-2016, 02:40 PM)Patrick C Wrote:(11-07-2016, 10:47 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (13) During interrogation, Oswald put himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.
This is a rather outrageous untruth that Bugliosi is making here. It's true that Oswald was possibly one of the last to leave the 6th floor, sometime around 12 noon, where he was working that day - but he was seen by others, such as Arnold, on the first or second floor after 12 noon.
That Bugliosi has to lie to make his case shows just how weak these '53 Reasons' are.
Take careful note of the fact that "Honest" Patrick won't dare to defend this lie, nor call it a lie on Bugliosi's part. So much for "honesty."Quote:During interrogation, Oswald put himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.
If Bugliosi made this claim he is wrong. Oswald said he was in the first floor lunch room.
What page in RH is this claim made...?
I find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you've still not figured out that this series is refuting Bugliosi's claims found starting on page 951.
If you have the courage to debate this - by all means, jump in and find out just how hot the water is...
Bugliosi lied, and you're too dishonest to admit it.
Bugliosi isn't just "wrong" - he's a liar. You can't possibly show how someone who spent over 20 years studying this case could make such an obviously "wrong" statement.
Nor will you.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
It is getting rather commonplace that you Ben make the assertion that I will not respond to a post and when I do, you make no reference to the fact that your prediction was wrong.
So in response to you assertion "nor will you"......
In the chapter entitled Summary of Oswald’s Guilt, Vincent Bugliosi writes on page 958 of Reclaiming History.:-
Oswald…
“If we are to believe Oswald’s story”……
“claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor”. (as in the TSBD)
My interpretation is that Bugliosi is clearly making reference to a version of events that Oswald was working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, he does not however cite for the latter scenario.
It would seem that Bugliosi is saying that somewhere there is a statement from Oswald that he was up on the sixth floor when JFK was shot. This could either be a written statement from a witness such as individual from the DPD or FBI or Secret Service for example, or a recollection in an interview on film or even word of mouth from an individual who heard Oswald make that assertion.
It may be a confused message and Oswald could have simply said he worked on the sixth floor leading up to the assassination.
Eitherway Buglisosi is indicating that there were at least two stories from Oswald on his location at the time of the shots.
I have not seen nor heard of the story that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor, but that does not make Bugliosi wrong.
If he is wrong, he could simply be mistaken and in error. That does not make him a liar. However IF he has constructed that statement deliberately with no actual evidence then he is misleading the reader and that is a lie.
I would suggest that there is in fact a reasonable explanation.
But thank you for reminding me about the 53 points of guilt - what an EXCELLENT chapter "Summary of Oswald's Guilt" is. Really he does an outstanding job of demonstrating that Oswald acted alone beyond reasonable doubt.
The old addage that "you can't see the wood for the trees" is apt......in your case you can't see the wood for the twigs on the ground Holmes.
So in response to you assertion "nor will you"......
In the chapter entitled Summary of Oswald’s Guilt, Vincent Bugliosi writes on page 958 of Reclaiming History.:-
Oswald…
“If we are to believe Oswald’s story”……
“claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor”. (as in the TSBD)
My interpretation is that Bugliosi is clearly making reference to a version of events that Oswald was working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, he does not however cite for the latter scenario.
It would seem that Bugliosi is saying that somewhere there is a statement from Oswald that he was up on the sixth floor when JFK was shot. This could either be a written statement from a witness such as individual from the DPD or FBI or Secret Service for example, or a recollection in an interview on film or even word of mouth from an individual who heard Oswald make that assertion.
It may be a confused message and Oswald could have simply said he worked on the sixth floor leading up to the assassination.
Eitherway Buglisosi is indicating that there were at least two stories from Oswald on his location at the time of the shots.
I have not seen nor heard of the story that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor, but that does not make Bugliosi wrong.
If he is wrong, he could simply be mistaken and in error. That does not make him a liar. However IF he has constructed that statement deliberately with no actual evidence then he is misleading the reader and that is a lie.
I would suggest that there is in fact a reasonable explanation.
But thank you for reminding me about the 53 points of guilt - what an EXCELLENT chapter "Summary of Oswald's Guilt" is. Really he does an outstanding job of demonstrating that Oswald acted alone beyond reasonable doubt.
The old addage that "you can't see the wood for the trees" is apt......in your case you can't see the wood for the twigs on the ground Holmes.
This post was last modified: 12-11-2016, 01:59 PM by Patrick C.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It is getting rather commonplace that you Ben make the assertion that I will not respond to a post and when I do, you make no reference to the fact that your prediction was wrong.
Au contraire!
Anyone can note that my first post in this thread was posted in November... then A FULL MONTH LATER I pointed out your cowardice.
Only then did you deign to respond.
So no, Patrick... another provable lie on your part... YOU DID INDEED REFUSE TO RESPOND FOR AN ENTIRE MONTH... and only responded when I made fun of your cowardice...
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: So in response to you assertion "nor will you"......
In the chapter entitled Summary of Oswald’s Guilt, Vincent Bugliosi writes on page 958 of Reclaiming History.:-
Oswald…
“If we are to believe Oswald’s story”……
“claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor”. (as in the TSBD)
My interpretation is that Bugliosi is clearly making reference to a version of events that Oswald was working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, he does not however cite for the latter scenario.
You're a liar, Patrick.
There's never been ANYONE who's made the claim that Oswald was "working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting".
Certainly the Warren Commission made the claim that he was there at the time - but there has NEVER been any such claim from Oswald, or any critic, for that matter.
No wonder Bugliosi doesn't "cite"... he can't...
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It would seem that Bugliosi is saying that somewhere there is a statement from Oswald that he was up on the sixth floor when JFK was shot.
What a gutless liar you are!!!
You do know the term anachronism, right?
Tell us how you can justify something that happened about 40 minutes earlier as having taken place just before the shooting?
It's truly funny that you cannot admit that Bugliosi simply lied.
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: This could either be a written statement from a witness such as individual from the DPD or FBI or Secret Service for example, or a recollection in an interview on film or even word of mouth from an individual who heard Oswald make that assertion.
The Dallas Police arrested 5 other people, two of which still had a smoking rifle in their possession... I can't recall where I read that, it might have been a written statement from Chief Curry, or perhaps it was an FBI or SS report... maybe it was a Youtube video I saw it on... or maybe even 17th hand word of mouth from my second cousin's great grandfather...
In any case, you should believe it.
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It may be a confused message and Oswald could have simply said he worked on the sixth floor leading up to the assassination.
Eitherway Buglisosi is indicating that there were at least two stories from Oswald on his location at the time of the shots.
You're a gutless liar, Patrick.
Anyone who's taken the time to read what Bugliosi actually said KNOWS VERY WELL THAT HE'S SPEAKING ABOUT THE ALLEGED INCIDENT WITH GIVEN'S. (Which even Bugliosi admits was around 11:55)
Can you say 'Anacronism', Patrick?
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I have not seen nor heard of the story that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor, but that does not make Bugliosi wrong.
You haven't seen the statement that I did, which shows that the DPD arrested five men with two smoking guns... but that doesn't make me wrong, does it Patrick?
So do you have the courage of your convictions to publicly state that I'm not wrong?
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: If he is wrong, he could simply be mistaken and in error. That does not make him a liar. However IF he has constructed that statement deliberately with no actual evidence then he is misleading the reader and that is a lie.
I would suggest that there is in fact a reasonable explanation.
Then simply provide it.
It's clear, that despite the fact that I pointed you to the chapter in Reclaiming History that I'm refuting, that you've been too busy to take the time to read it. Otherwise, you wouldn't be attempting to mislead people with your "opinions" about what Bugliosi actually said.
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: But thank you for reminding me about the 53 points of guilt - what an EXCELLENT chapter "Summary of Oswald's Guilt" is. Really he does an outstanding job of demonstrating that Oswald acted alone beyond reasonable doubt.
The old addage that "you can't see the wood for the trees" is apt......in your case you can't see the wood for the twigs on the ground Holmes.
I guess the titles of these threads didn't clue you in on what the topic is...
And if your defense is no better than it has been thus far, Bugliosi is getting a very poor legacy indeed...
This post was last modified: 12-11-2016, 06:12 PM by Ben Holmes.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
(12-11-2016, 06:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It is getting rather commonplace that you Ben make the assertion that I will not respond to a post and when I do, you make no reference to the fact that your prediction was wrong.
Au contraire!
Anyone can note that my first post in this thread was posted in November... then A FULL MONTH LATER I pointed out your cowardice.
Only then did you deign to respond.
So no, Patrick... another provable lie on your part... YOU DID INDEED REFUSE TO RESPOND FOR AN ENTIRE MONTH... and only responded when I made fun of your cowardice...
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: So in response to you assertion "nor will you"......
In the chapter entitled Summary of Oswald’s Guilt, Vincent Bugliosi writes on page 958 of Reclaiming History.:-
Oswald…
“If we are to believe Oswald’s story”……
“claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor”. (as in the TSBD)
My interpretation is that Bugliosi is clearly making reference to a version of events that Oswald was working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, he does not however cite for the latter scenario.
You're a liar, Patrick.
There's never been ANYONE who's made the claim that Oswald was "working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting".
Certainly the Warren Commission made the claim that he was there at the time - but there has NEVER been any such claim from Oswald, or any critic, for that matter.
No wonder Bugliosi doesn't "cite"... he can't...
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It would seem that Bugliosi is saying that somewhere there is a statement from Oswald that he was up on the sixth floor when JFK was shot.
What a gutless liar you are!!!
You do know the term anachronism, right?
Tell us how you can justify something that happened about 40 minutes earlier as having taken place just before the shooting?
It's truly funny that you cannot admit that Bugliosi simply lied.
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: This could either be a written statement from a witness such as individual from the DPD or FBI or Secret Service for example, or a recollection in an interview on film or even word of mouth from an individual who heard Oswald make that assertion.
The Dallas Police arrested 5 other people, two of which still had a smoking rifle in their possession... I can't recall where I read that, it might have been a written statement from Chief Curry, or perhaps it was an FBI or SS report... maybe it was a Youtube video I saw it on... or maybe even 17th hand word of mouth from my second cousin's great grandfather...
In any case, you should believe it.
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It may be a confused message and Oswald could have simply said he worked on the sixth floor leading up to the assassination.
Eitherway Buglisosi is indicating that there were at least two stories from Oswald on his location at the time of the shots.
You're a gutless liar, Patrick.
Anyone who's taken the time to read what Bugliosi actually said KNOWS VERY WELL THAT HE'S SPEAKING ABOUT THE ALLEGED INCIDENT WITH GIVEN'S. (Which even Bugliosi admits was around 11:55)
Can you say 'Anacronism', Patrick?
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I have not seen nor heard of the story that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor, but that does not make Bugliosi wrong.
You haven't seen the statement that I did, which shows that the DPD arrested five men with two smoking guns... but that doesn't make me wrong, does it Patrick?
So do you have the courage of your convictions to publicly state that I'm not wrong?
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: If he is wrong, he could simply be mistaken and in error. That does not make him a liar. However IF he has constructed that statement deliberately with no actual evidence then he is misleading the reader and that is a lie.
I would suggest that there is in fact a reasonable explanation.
Then simply provide it.
It's clear, that despite the fact that I pointed you to the chapter in Reclaiming History that I'm refuting, that you've been too busy to take the time to read it. Otherwise, you wouldn't be attempting to mislead people with your "opinions" about what Bugliosi actually said.
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: But thank you for reminding me about the 53 points of guilt - what an EXCELLENT chapter "Summary of Oswald's Guilt" is. Really he does an outstanding job of demonstrating that Oswald acted alone beyond reasonable doubt.
The old addage that "you can't see the wood for the trees" is apt......in your case you can't see the wood for the twigs on the ground Holmes.
I guess the titles of these threads didn't clue you in on what the topic is...
And if your defense is no better than it has been thus far, Bugliosi is getting a very poor legacy indeed...
The usual tripe I see.
Again, your English comprehension fails...
my "interpretation" is exactly that....it cannot be a lie. That you fail to understand that is a great example of exactly the point I made to you the other day about your inability to engage logically.
(12-12-2016, 11:19 AM)Patrick C Wrote:(12-11-2016, 06:12 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It is getting rather commonplace that you Ben make the assertion that I will not respond to a post and when I do, you make no reference to the fact that your prediction was wrong.
Au contraire!
Anyone can note that my first post in this thread was posted in November... then A FULL MONTH LATER I pointed out your cowardice.
Only then did you deign to respond.
So no, Patrick... another provable lie on your part... YOU DID INDEED REFUSE TO RESPOND FOR AN ENTIRE MONTH... and only responded when I made fun of your cowardice...
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: So in response to you assertion "nor will you"......
In the chapter entitled Summary of Oswald’s Guilt, Vincent Bugliosi writes on page 958 of Reclaiming History.:-
Oswald…
“If we are to believe Oswald’s story”……
“claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor”. (as in the TSBD)
My interpretation is that Bugliosi is clearly making reference to a version of events that Oswald was working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, he does not however cite for the latter scenario.
You're a liar, Patrick.
There's never been ANYONE who's made the claim that Oswald was "working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting".
Certainly the Warren Commission made the claim that he was there at the time - but there has NEVER been any such claim from Oswald, or any critic, for that matter.
No wonder Bugliosi doesn't "cite"... he can't...
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It would seem that Bugliosi is saying that somewhere there is a statement from Oswald that he was up on the sixth floor when JFK was shot.
What a gutless liar you are!!!
You do know the term anachronism, right?
Tell us how you can justify something that happened about 40 minutes earlier as having taken place just before the shooting?
It's truly funny that you cannot admit that Bugliosi simply lied.
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: This could either be a written statement from a witness such as individual from the DPD or FBI or Secret Service for example, or a recollection in an interview on film or even word of mouth from an individual who heard Oswald make that assertion.
The Dallas Police arrested 5 other people, two of which still had a smoking rifle in their possession... I can't recall where I read that, it might have been a written statement from Chief Curry, or perhaps it was an FBI or SS report... maybe it was a Youtube video I saw it on... or maybe even 17th hand word of mouth from my second cousin's great grandfather...
In any case, you should believe it.
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: It may be a confused message and Oswald could have simply said he worked on the sixth floor leading up to the assassination.
Eitherway Buglisosi is indicating that there were at least two stories from Oswald on his location at the time of the shots.
You're a gutless liar, Patrick.
Anyone who's taken the time to read what Bugliosi actually said KNOWS VERY WELL THAT HE'S SPEAKING ABOUT THE ALLEGED INCIDENT WITH GIVEN'S. (Which even Bugliosi admits was around 11:55)
Can you say 'Anacronism', Patrick?
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I have not seen nor heard of the story that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor, but that does not make Bugliosi wrong.
You haven't seen the statement that I did, which shows that the DPD arrested five men with two smoking guns... but that doesn't make me wrong, does it Patrick?
So do you have the courage of your convictions to publicly state that I'm not wrong?
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: If he is wrong, he could simply be mistaken and in error. That does not make him a liar. However IF he has constructed that statement deliberately with no actual evidence then he is misleading the reader and that is a lie.
I would suggest that there is in fact a reasonable explanation.
Then simply provide it.
It's clear, that despite the fact that I pointed you to the chapter in Reclaiming History that I'm refuting, that you've been too busy to take the time to read it. Otherwise, you wouldn't be attempting to mislead people with your "opinions" about what Bugliosi actually said.
(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: But thank you for reminding me about the 53 points of guilt - what an EXCELLENT chapter "Summary of Oswald's Guilt" is. Really he does an outstanding job of demonstrating that Oswald acted alone beyond reasonable doubt.
The old addage that "you can't see the wood for the trees" is apt......in your case you can't see the wood for the twigs on the ground Holmes.
I guess the titles of these threads didn't clue you in on what the topic is...
And if your defense is no better than it has been thus far, Bugliosi is getting a very poor legacy indeed...
The usual tripe I see.
Again, your English comprehension fails...
my "interpretation" is exactly that....it cannot be a lie. That you fail to understand that is a great example of exactly the point I made to you the other day about your inability to engage logically.
Quote:I stated "It would seem that Bugliosi is saying that somewhere there is a statement from Oswald that he was up on the sixth floor when JFK was shot."
You responded with "What a gutless liar you are!!!"
Er, again no ypu dope.
That is EXACTLY what Bugliosi is saying. That Oswald advised he was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.
Can you not READ.....! That is not a lie - it is batently clear that that is what VB is claiming.
Go to page 957 of "RH".....
"During Sunday's [11/24/63] interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. .... In his Sunday-morning interrogation he said that at lunchtime, one of the "Negro" employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he declined. .... He said before he could finish whatever he was doing, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he "WENT DOWNSTAIRS," a policeman questioned him as to his identification, and his boss stated that he was one of their employees. .... WHERE WAS OSWALD AT THE TIME THE NEGRO EMPLOYEE INVITED HIM TO LUNCH, AND BEFORE HE DESCENDED TO THE SECOND-FLOOR LUNCHROOM?
He does not however state the source of his information.
To close, I am not responding to all of your above points to what was a perfectly fair, reasonable and honest post
that I made to answer your question.
Again you accuse me of lying when clearly I am not.
And you again show that you have no idea how out of your depth you are here. Your logic is appalling, your English comprehension is appalling. Your shift in position to accuse me of distorting the truth is ridiculous!
I have NO IDEA where Bugliosi gets the story that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting and like you I have NEVER heard that before from anyone! And I NEVER claimed I did know. AND I have clearly stated that Bugliosi could be mistaken, he could have fabricated the story - though I doubt it and he could have something in writing, but does not cite for it. That is the long and the short of it. Not my fault. That is the way it is.
Comprende ......?
Quote:
This post was last modified: 12-12-2016, 11:35 AM by Patrick C.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
(12-12-2016, 11:19 AM)Patrick C Wrote:
Quote:I stated "It would seem that Bugliosi is saying that somewhere there is a statement from Oswald that he was up on the sixth floor when JFK was shot."
You responded with "What a gutless liar you are!!!"
Er, again no ypu dope.
That is EXACTLY what Bugliosi is saying. That Oswald advised he was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.
Nope.
There's exactly ZERO evidence for Oswald ever stating that he was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.
There's plenty of evidence that this is where he was up until about 11:50 or so... when he then went downstairs, was seen by several people BEING downstairs after 12 noon.
So yes, you and Bugliosi are liars.
Quite clearly, you don't know the term 'anachronism'... I asked, and you refused to answer. You should look it up in a dictionary.
Both you and Bugliosi are intentionally (and contrary to the evidence) moving a statement about location to a point 30-40 minutes LATER than it actually occurred.
(12-12-2016, 11:19 AM)Patrick C Wrote: Can you not READ.....! That is not a lie - it is batently clear that that is what VB is claiming.
Go to page 957 of "RH".....
"During Sunday's [11/24/63] interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. .... In his Sunday-morning interrogation he said that at lunchtime, one of the "Negro" employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he declined. .... He said before he could finish whatever he was doing, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he "WENT DOWNSTAIRS," a policeman questioned him as to his identification, and his boss stated that he was one of their employees. .... WHERE WAS OSWALD AT THE TIME THE NEGRO EMPLOYEE INVITED HIM TO LUNCH, AND BEFORE HE DESCENDED TO THE SECOND-FLOOR LUNCHROOM?
He does not however state the source of his information.'
He can't... he's lying.
Just as you are.
You pretend that you simply don't know the source of Bugliosi's information...
You had absolutely nothing to say when I stated:
Quote:The Dallas Police arrested 5 other people, two of which still had a smoking rifle in their possession... I can't recall where I read that, it might have been a written statement from Chief Curry, or perhaps it was an FBI or SS report... maybe it was a Youtube video I saw it on... or maybe even 17th hand word of mouth from my second cousin's great grandfather...
In any case, you should believe it.
It didn't surprise me that you didn't answer that... because it shows quite well EXACTLY WHAT YOU AND BUGLIOSI ARE DOING.
Interestingly, this is the FIRST TIME in this series of posts where you've provably gone to "Reclaiming History" - and actually read where Bugliosi is lying. Close to the half-way point in the series of posts - and you finally take the time to check sources. Quite typical for believers, of course...
(12-12-2016, 11:19 AM)Patrick C Wrote: To close, I am not responding to all of your above points to what was a perfectly fair, reasonable and honest post
that I made to answer your question.
Of course not... you virtually never do. Why change a habit that suits a believer?
I pointed out with an analogy to show how you were lying, and you had nothing to say. I did EXACTLY WHAT BUGLIOSI DID - with the sole exception that my "evidence" pointed to the opposite conclusion.
That's why you had nothing to say.
You know full well what an anachronism is - and you know full well that there's ZERO evidence that Oswald came down from the 6th floor in response to a "commotion". You'll NEVER provide a citation to anything that can support yours and Bugliosi's lie.
Never...
(12-12-2016, 11:19 AM)Patrick C Wrote: Again you accuse me of lying when clearly I am not.
Anytime you make a claim that you cannot cite the evidence for - you're lying.
It's really just that simple.
You refused to label this:
Quote:The Dallas Police arrested 5 other people, two of which still had a smoking rifle in their possession... I can't recall where I read that, it might have been a written statement from Chief Curry, or perhaps it was an FBI or SS report... maybe it was a Youtube video I saw it on... or maybe even 17th hand word of mouth from my second cousin's great grandfather...
a lie... because you clearly understood that this is EXACTLY what you and Bugliosi are doing.
If you were an honest man, you'd have to admit that you believe that the DPD arrested 5 people, right after you claim to believe that Oswald said he came down from the 6th floor right after the assassination.
(12-12-2016, 11:19 AM)Patrick C Wrote: And you again show that you have no idea how out of your depth you are here. Your logic is appalling, your English comprehension is appalling. Your shift in position to accuse me of distorting the truth is ridiculous!
And yet, despite the post being RIGHT HERE, you've been unable to point to a single example of "appalling" logic or English comprehension. Indeed, this is the normal claim you make after being caught lying quite blatantly.
Quite the gutless liar, aren't you Patrick? Quite the coward too... willing to make a claim, yet completely unwilling to allow anyone to answer it.
(12-12-2016, 11:19 AM)Patrick C Wrote: I have NO IDEA where Bugliosi gets the story that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting and like you I have NEVER heard that before from anyone! And I NEVER claimed I did know. AND I have clearly stated that Bugliosi could be mistaken, he could have fabricated the story - though I doubt it and he could have something in writing, but does not cite for it. That is the long and the short of it. Not my fault. That is the way it is.
Comprende ......?
Had Mark Lane made a similar claim, but in defense of Oswald rather than indicting him, you'd be screaming "LIAR" at the top of your lungs... you know it, I know it.
The only reason you refused to say anything about the 5 others who were arrested with 2 smoking guns, is that you knew exactly how that analogy worked.
So I'm announcing my new policy right here, and will point people to it if you DARE to label me a liar... I will, in the future, make statements that have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for it, and you'll be allowed to claim nothing more than that I "could be mistaken".
Because, of course, you'll be demonstrating your hypocrisy if you do anything more...
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
I have not been able to find any possible source for Bugliosi's claim ref Oswald claiming he was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots.
Sylvia Meagher article here:-
http://22november1963.org.uk/meagher-the...-mr-givens
It seems to me that Bugliosi may well have confused the Givens testimony ref Oswald on the 6th floor in the noon hour.
However I am in no position to make a judgment call on whether or not Buglisi has made an honest mistake or if he has misled the reader, or if in fact he had a source that no one else has seen.
Sylvia Meagher article here:-
http://22november1963.org.uk/meagher-the...-mr-givens
It seems to me that Bugliosi may well have confused the Givens testimony ref Oswald on the 6th floor in the noon hour.
However I am in no position to make a judgment call on whether or not Buglisi has made an honest mistake or if he has misled the reader, or if in fact he had a source that no one else has seen.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.
(12-12-2016, 05:08 PM)Patrick C Wrote: I have not been able to find any possible source for Bugliosi's claim ref Oswald claiming he was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots.
Sylvia Meagher article here:-
http://22november1963.org.uk/meagher-the...-mr-givens
It seems to me that Bugliosi may well have confused the Givens testimony ref Oswald on the 6th floor in the noon hour.
However I am in no position to make a judgment call on whether or not Buglisi has made an honest mistake or if he has misled the reader, or if in fact he had a source that no one else has seen.
Yes, Patrick; you ARE in a position to make a judgement call.
Did Bugliosi make a statement that he can cite the evidence for, or not?
It's just that simple.
You refuse to make that judgement call ONLY because Bugliosi was a believer... there's no other reason.
If Mark Lane had stated that Givens put Oswald in the lunch room at 12:30 - YOU WOULD HAVE LABELED HIM A LIAR.
Where's the honesty, Patrick?
Nor is this the first lie I've pointed out that Bugliosi told...
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)