+- Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com)
+-- Forum: Main JFK Forums (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-Main-JFK-Forums)
+--- Forum: JFK Conspiracy Main Forum (http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Forum-JFK-Conspiracy-Main-Forum)
+--- Thread: Vincent Bugliosi, Subjectivity, And Patrick Collins (/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-Subjectivity-And-Patrick-Collins)
Vincent Bugliosi, Subjectivity, And Patrick Collins - Ben Holmes - 09-16-2016
Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:If Bugliosi spent over 20 years studying the evidence, yet was unaware of one of the most critical and devastating facts that tends to show a conspiracy, how can he be trusted for anything he says about the case?
I think that is a very subjective view.
I listed two facts.
#1 - Bugliosi spent over 20 years studying the evidence.
#2 - Bugliosi failed to understand a very basic bit of medical evidence.
Which one was "subjective," Patrick?
I stated that "I predict that NO believer will specifically address this question." - looks like I was perfectly correct.
And despite asking Patrick what was "subjective" - he has avoided this question for years...
RE: Vincent Bugliosi, Subjectivity, And Patrick Collins - Lee Abbott - 09-16-2016
Patrick's answer? This is somone whose rational for 3 NRA rated experts unable to do what Oswald allegedly did - and under far more favorable conditions, is, "He got lucky, so what?"
RE: Vincent Bugliosi, Subjectivity, And Patrick Collins - Patrick C - 09-17-2016
"This is somone whose rational for 3 NRA rated experts unable to do what Oswald allegedly did - and under far more favorable conditions, is, "He got lucky, so what?"........."
The NRA experts could comfortably get off two shots at 65 and 88 yards approx within approx 5.3 seconds.
You again refer to the scenario in which three shots were fired in approx 5.3 seconds. It is my belief based on a close scrutiny of the witness statements and the application of the logical odds - that TWO shots only were fired in the time span from the JFK back strike and the head shot.
Your consistant lack of consideration of the "two shots two strikes scenario" and either no third shot or an early missed shot (8 to 9 seconds for 3 shots) - is palpably ignorant and is a fine example of pro conspiracy delusion.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi, Subjectivity, And Patrick Collins - Ben Holmes - 09-17-2016
(09-17-2016, 11:35 AM)Patrick C Wrote: "This is somone whose rational for 3 NRA rated experts unable to do what Oswald allegedly did - and under far more favorable conditions, is, "He got lucky, so what?"........."
The NRA experts could comfortably get off two shots at 65 and 88 yards approx within approx 5.3 seconds.
You again refer to the scenario in which three shots were fired in approx 5.3 seconds. It is my belief based on a close scrutiny of the witness statements and the application of the logical odds - that TWO shots only were fired in the time span from the JFK back strike and the head shot.
Your consistant lack of consideration of the "two shots two strikes scenario" and either no third shot or an early missed shot (8 to 9 seconds for 3 shots) - is palpably ignorant and is a fine example of pro conspiracy delusion.
Still absolute silence on what was "subjective".
And for someone who claims to believe that only two shots were fired, you show an amazing cowardice. Critics have long stated that CE543 wasn't fired in the TSBD - you clearly must agree, yet you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that critics have been right for decades on that issue.