(14) Oswald's story of getting a Coke after hearing commotion of assassination is not sensible.
Sheer speculation with NO REASON. We know for a FACT that several people saw Oswald with a coke. So this is a well established fact. Trying to assert that 'getting a coke' is somehow evidence against someone in a murder is just too silly for words. Quite similar to the 'not seen reading a newspaper' was...
Bugliosi's presumption of guilt, then his tendency to look at any and every event, and assert that it proves Oswald's guilt, is quite evident here.
Watch as believers refuse to defend Bugliosi's quite silly attempt to paint Oswald as guilty...
Where are you - Patrick???
(11-08-2016, 04:29 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ](14) Oswald's story of getting a Coke after hearing commotion of assassination is not sensible.
Sheer speculation with NO REASON. We know for a FACT that several people saw Oswald with a coke. So this is a well established fact. Trying to assert that 'getting a coke' is somehow evidence against someone in a murder is just too silly for words. Quite similar to the 'not seen reading a newspaper' was...
Bugliosi's presumption of guilt, then his tendency to look at any and every event, and assert that it proves Oswald's guilt, is quite evident here.
Watch as believers refuse to defend Bugliosi's quite silly attempt to paint Oswald as guilty...
Where are you - Patrick???
But Dale and Debunker were positive Bugliosi was "the Master".
(11-08-2016, 05:18 PM)Lee Abbott Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2016, 04:29 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ](14) Oswald's story of getting a Coke after hearing commotion of assassination is not sensible.
Sheer speculation with NO REASON. We know for a FACT that several people saw Oswald with a coke. So this is a well established fact. Trying to assert that 'getting a coke' is somehow evidence against someone in a murder is just too silly for words. Quite similar to the 'not seen reading a newspaper' was...
Bugliosi's presumption of guilt, then his tendency to look at any and every event, and assert that it proves Oswald's guilt, is quite evident here.
Watch as believers refuse to defend Bugliosi's quite silly attempt to paint Oswald as guilty...
Where are you - Patrick???
But Dale and Debunker were positive Bugliosi was "the Master".
It's rather telling that believers can't actually
support that claim...
And refuse to admit even Bugliosi's more blatant lies... that tells the tale.
(11-08-2016, 08:53 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2016, 05:18 PM)Lee Abbott Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2016, 04:29 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ](14) Oswald's story of getting a Coke after hearing commotion of assassination is not sensible.
Sheer speculation with NO REASON. We know for a FACT that several people saw Oswald with a coke. So this is a well established fact. Trying to assert that 'getting a coke' is somehow evidence against someone in a murder is just too silly for words. Quite similar to the 'not seen reading a newspaper' was...
Bugliosi's presumption of guilt, then his tendency to look at any and every event, and assert that it proves Oswald's guilt, is quite evident here.
Watch as believers refuse to defend Bugliosi's quite silly attempt to paint Oswald as guilty...
Where are you - Patrick???
But Dale and Debunker were positive Bugliosi was "the Master".
It's rather telling that believers can't actually support that claim...
And refuse to admit even Bugliosi's more blatant lies... that tells the tale.
There are claims of course that Oswald was NOT drinking a Coke in the Baker / Truly encounter, but was seen drinking a full bottle some minutes later. It is rather academic, but IF Oswald was drinking a Coke immediately after the assassination it would seem odd if he was innocent - he would be running down the stairs to see what the commotion was all about.......his grabbing a Coke quickly does suggest he wanted to look "normal" and calm, which would be a ploy you might use if you did not want to look like something was up. Which is why Bugliosi makes a point about it - and it is a perfectly reasonable point. Taken in isolation it means little, but it is one of many "behaviours" that Oswald exhibited that day than when combined, points to his involvement in the assassination.
(11-10-2016, 02:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2016, 08:53 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2016, 05:18 PM)Lee Abbott Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2016, 04:29 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ](14) Oswald's story of getting a Coke after hearing commotion of assassination is not sensible.
Sheer speculation with NO REASON. We know for a FACT that several people saw Oswald with a coke. So this is a well established fact. Trying to assert that 'getting a coke' is somehow evidence against someone in a murder is just too silly for words. Quite similar to the 'not seen reading a newspaper' was...
Bugliosi's presumption of guilt, then his tendency to look at any and every event, and assert that it proves Oswald's guilt, is quite evident here.
Watch as believers refuse to defend Bugliosi's quite silly attempt to paint Oswald as guilty...
Where are you - Patrick???
But Dale and Debunker were positive Bugliosi was "the Master".
It's rather telling that believers can't actually support that claim...
And refuse to admit even Bugliosi's more blatant lies... that tells the tale.
There are claims of course that Oswald was NOT drinking a Coke in the Baker / Truly encounter, but was seen drinking a full bottle some minutes later. It is rather academic, but IF Oswald was drinking a Coke immediately after the assassination it would seem odd if he was innocent - he would be running down the stairs to see what the commotion was all about.......his grabbing a Coke quickly does suggest he wanted to look "normal" and calm, which would be a ploy you might use if you did not want to look like something was up. Which is why Bugliosi makes a point about it - and it is a perfectly reasonable point. Taken in isolation it means little, but it is one of many "behaviours" that Oswald exhibited that day than when combined, points to his involvement in the assassination.
If... IF...
IF...
IF...
IF...
IF...
IF
This is the reasoning power of believers... speculation is the extent of it.
If Oswald were completely innocent of any crime, it's perfectly reasonable to grab a coke during his lunch.
Let me repeat that, since it's so blazingly obvious that Patrick might have missed it, and will certainly refuse to acknowledge it...
If Oswald were completely innocent of any crime, it's perfectly reasonable to grab a coke during his lunch.
One more time... since it usually requires repetition for believers to catch on:
If Oswald were completely innocent of any crime, it's perfectly reasonable to grab a coke during his lunch.
How many other people were drinking something during that same time period? Patrick won't say...
PATRICK DOESN'T KNOW...
All Patrick knows is that the evidence shows that Oswald was drinking a beverage... that's it.
And from that bit of evidence, Patrick draws the conclusion that Oswald was someplace else, with a rifle, killing the President a few minutes earlier. (just as Bugliosi does...)
If all of us were allowed to use that sort of logic, Patrick wouldn't last five seconds.
Patrick is a believer - but that's rather academic.
The facts remain.
P.S. Patrick still refuses to retract his lie about what Malcolm Kilduff stated in his 1991 interview.