Posts: 955
Threads:276
Joined: May 2016
Reputation:
35
Stance Critic
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #9 Refuted.
(11-05-2016, 12:54 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Ben Holmes Wrote:As is usual - Patrick demonstrates his cowardice by refusing to answer who else read the newspaper in the TSBD... or more importantly, who did not.
Allow me to translate that for you Ben.....
"Patrick demonstrates his lack of interest in debating trivial nonsense with a person of limited intellectual rigour in respect of the JFK case."
Who gives a shit what other persons read the newspaper in the TSBD you buffoon! Once again an absolute howler.....do you actually read whay you have written before you post Ben....?
You are, of course, making my point for me.
Bugliosi, the Warren Commission, and believers such as yourself have PRESUMED AT THE BEGINNING that Oswald was the lone assassin, and then taken virtually everything he's documented to have done as evidence for that guilt.
If
not reading a newspaper is evidence of guilt - then it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask who else read or didn't read a newspaper. If you were truly interested in finding the guilty. But such questions are only of interest to you if they apply to Lee Harvey Oswald - and no-one else.
That fact tells the tale...