Boz Wrote:Though Oswald was probably more politically oriented than all thirteen other warehousemen at the Book Depository Building put together, if we are to believe Oswald’s story, he apparently was the only one who had no interest at all in watching the presidential motorcade go by, either from out on the street or froma window, 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. Indeed, Oswald, the political animal, was so uninterested in the fact that the most powerful politician on earth had just been shot that he had no inclination to stick around for a few minutes and engage in conversation with his coworkers about the sensational and tragic event. Does that make any sense?
V Bugliosi Reclaiming History
Interestingly, although this post already has over half a dozen responses, and these include alleged critics, not a single person has pointed out Bugliosi's lie.
IT'S A LIE that Oswald ever stated that he was on the 6th floor during the shooting. There's no citation given, and none available.
So if you want the truth, alt.assassination.jfk, a censored forum run by "Professor" John McAdams, probably isn't the place you want to go...
If one is to believe Oswald was set up, as I do, then he was most assuredly instructed to remain inside the TSBD during the motorcade past that building so as not be seen by the many spectators or on film.
(12-21-2016, 04:08 PM)Lee Abbott Wrote: [ -> ]If one is to believe Oswald was set up, as I do, then he was most assuredly instructed to remain inside the TSBD during the motorcade past that building so as not be seen by the many spectators or on film.
Yes... but one doesn't need to rely on speculation...
It's a FACT that Oswald stated he was in the lunchroom.
It's a FACT that many people saw him BETWEEN 12 noon and 12:30 downstairs.
It's a FACT that he was seen by Officer Baker & Truly just a minute or two after the assassination downstairs.
It's beyond any rational argument to try to place him on the sixth floor - and beyond any honesty to claim that Oswald ever stated he was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
Even presuming he was guilty - it just begs belief that a guilty man would intentionally place himself at the scene of the crime. Yet Bugliosi apparently believed that.
Bugliosi is a liar.
And those who refuse to publicly state that Bugliosi lied on this issue are themselves, liars.
It's not rocket science...
David Von Pein Wrote: (12-21-2016, 03:07 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: [ -> ]Boz Wrote:Though Oswald was probably more politically oriented than all thirteen other warehousemen at the Book Depository Building put together, if we are to believe Oswald’s story, he apparently was the only one who had no interest at all in watching the presidential motorcade go by, either from out on the street or froma window, 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. Indeed, Oswald, the political animal, was so uninterested in the fact that the most powerful politician on earth had just been shot that he had no inclination to stick around for a few minutes and engage in conversation with his coworkers about the sensational and tragic event. Does that make any sense?
V Bugliosi Reclaiming History
Interestingly, although this post already has over half a dozen responses, and these include alleged critics, not a single person has pointed out Bugliosi's lie.
IT'S A LIE that Oswald ever stated that he was on the 6th floor during the shooting. There's no citation given, and none available.
So if you want the truth, alt.assassination.jfk, a censored forum run by "Professor" John McAdams, probably isn't the place you want to go...
Ben Holmes, as usual, is wrong. A source most certainly is "available" for Bugliosi's quote. And two sources *are* provided by Mr. Bugliosi for that information, with both sources being traced back to Harry Holmes.
Does Ben Holmes *really* think Vince Bugliosi just MADE UP the stuff quoted by BOZ in post #1 of this thread? The source just wasn't provided by BOZ in this aaj thread. That's all.
Once again, no citation.
Believers clearly believe that all that's needed is an assertion. And since vague assertions cannot be definitively refuted, this explains David's cowardice...