(12-12-2016, 03:20 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(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...

(12-12-2016, 05:15 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  You state "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."

Once again here we go. Holmes just take a running jump.

How can I not allow some one to answer a claim on YOUR web site you idiot.

(12-12-2016, 05:15 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  The fact that you constantly accuse me of lying and running just shows you to be an inedequate juvenile. You are incapable of adult debate.

(12-12-2016, 05:15 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  I have dipped in for a few minutes each week and in this last instance have answered your question fairly and naturally honestly. 

(12-12-2016, 05:15 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  Some of your posts I have not addressed because I am simply not interested nor willing to take any more time - and why should I? You are a disgrace.

Anyway, take your running jump Holmes enjoy playing JFK assassination Patience.