+- 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's 53 Reasons... #2 Refuted. (/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-2-Refuted)
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #2 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 10-13-2016
Vincent Bugliosi Wrote: (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.
No, it wasn't. We know now that chances are quite good that there were no curtains up in Oswald's apartment, as we now know of photos taken Saturday morning showing curtain rods being put up.
As well, Dallas Police archives have now shown photographs of curtain rods that have been dusted for fingerprints... So the claim that there were no curtain rods ever found in this case is simply not true. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/
Bugliosi in fact lied at this point, when he stated that no curtain rods had been found. Once again, Bugliosi is simply lying about the evidence in order to fabricate his case.
We also don't know that Oswald made this claim. Since his statements under questioning were never recorded, all we have is testimony from a few who questioned Oswald, and a few notes that have surfaced many years later. We also have testimony from Frazier, whom we now know had his rifle confiscated, and who was run through a lie detector test late that evening. I suspect that someone who was clearly on the edges of being labeled a suspect in this case was willing to say whatever needed to be said to avoid that.
Be careful to note that believers will absolutely refuse to defend Bugliosi as I go through his '53 Reasons' and show them to be the nonsense that they are.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #2 Refuted. - Patrick C - 10-14-2016
Well we know from Buell that Oswald told him curtain rods were in the package....so in fact we do know there was a package and Oswald stated they were curtain rods.
I have always found it rather odd that he would need to make a paper bag to carry curtain rods. Why would you need a bag...? Just carry the rod or rods loose The window was pretty small - I have actually been in his bedroom at N. Beckley - 1983.
That Oswald carried a rifle into work that morning is almost a given, as is that he is the lone assassin.
As for Bugliosi - he is not the final word on the assassination. His work is highly persuasive that Oswald acted alone, but it is not and nor should be considered perfect.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #2 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 10-14-2016
(10-14-2016, 11:46 AM)Patrick C Wrote: Well we know from Buell that Oswald told him curtain rods were in the package....so in fact we do know there was a package and Oswald stated they were curtain rods.
Nope... we do not "know" this...
You are certainly aware of the fact that for a time, Frazier was treated as a suspect in the murder... was hauled in and put through a lie detector test, and had his own rifle confiscated.
You've completely ignored the fact that there WERE curtain rods involved in this case... THIS IS A PROVABLE FACT.
One that you need to account for.
(10-14-2016, 11:46 AM)Patrick C Wrote: I have always found it rather odd that he would need to make a paper bag to carry curtain rods. Why would you need a bag...? Just carry the rod or rods loose The window was pretty small - I have actually been in his bedroom at N. Beckley - 1983.
Silly speculation like this doesn't change the fact that there WERE curtain rods involved in this case... curtain rods that you've not publicly acknowledged, and have NEVER explained.
(10-14-2016, 11:46 AM)Patrick C Wrote: That Oswald carried a rifle into work that morning is almost a given, as is that he is the lone assassin.
Again, mere speculation on your part... still evading the fact that curtain rods are still in this case, and unexplained by you.
(10-14-2016, 11:46 AM)Patrick C Wrote: As for Bugliosi - he is not the final word on the assassination. His work is highly persuasive that Oswald acted alone, but it is not and nor should be considered perfect.
He either told the truth, or he lied.
He was either "persuasive" - or he spouted nonsense.
It's looking like you're going to have a very hard time defending him... you'd better call David Von Pein, and ask him for help... since he's the acknowledged Bugliosi fan on the Internet.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #2 Refuted. - Patrick C - 10-15-2016
(10-14-2016, 02:06 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(10-14-2016, 11:46 AM)Patrick C Wrote: Well we know from Buell that Oswald told him curtain rods were in the package....so in fact we do know there was a package and Oswald stated they were curtain rods.
Nope... we do not "know" this...
You are certainly aware of the fact that for a time, Frazier was treated as a suspect in the murder... was hauled in and put through a lie detector test, and had his own rifle confiscated.
You've completely ignored the fact that there WERE curtain rods involved in this case... THIS IS A PROVABLE FACT.
One that you need to account for.
(10-14-2016, 11:46 AM)Patrick C Wrote: I have always found it rather odd that he would need to make a paper bag to carry curtain rods. Why would you need a bag...? Just carry the rod or rods loose The window was pretty small - I have actually been in his bedroom at N. Beckley - 1983.
Silly speculation like this doesn't change the fact that there WERE curtain rods involved in this case... curtain rods that you've not publicly acknowledged, and have NEVER explained.
(10-14-2016, 11:46 AM)Patrick C Wrote: That Oswald carried a rifle into work that morning is almost a given, as is that he is the lone assassin.
Again, mere speculation on your part... still evading the fact that curtain rods are still in this case, and unexplained by you.
(10-14-2016, 11:46 AM)Patrick C Wrote: As for Bugliosi - he is not the final word on the assassination. His work is highly persuasive that Oswald acted alone, but it is not and nor should be considered perfect.
He either told the truth, or he lied.
He was either "persuasive" - or he spouted nonsense.
It's looking like you're going to have a very hard time defending him... you'd better call David Von Pein, and ask him for help... since he's the acknowledged Bugliosi fan on the Internet.
Ben Holmes Wrote:He was either "persuasive" - or he spouted nonsense.
What a ridiculous suggestion.
So you think he spouted 1600 pages of nonsense over a period of 20+ years of research and writing......as a succesful attorney with a fine track record........
He wrote one of the most emphatic books ever written on the assassination. Period. He does not need any defending and if he were here to debate with you Holmes, he would run rings around you.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #2 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 10-16-2016
(10-15-2016, 02:34 PM)Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:He was either "persuasive" - or he spouted nonsense.
What a ridiculous suggestion.
So you think he spouted 1600 pages of nonsense over a period of 20+ years of research and writing......as a succesful attorney with a fine track record........
He wrote one of the most emphatic books ever written on the assassination. Period. He does not need any defending and if he were here to debate with you Holmes, he would run rings around you.
Such AMAZING cowardice!!!
You again avoided all the points I raised.
So let's deal with the one minor point you thought you could argue.
You claim Bugliosi doesn't need any defending... the truth is, YOU CAN'T DEFEND BUGLIOSI!!!
For example, that 20+ years of study ... and he STILL couldn't get the basic descriptions of the wounds correct. Something that David Von Pein was able to do after only a week of attempting to refute my point that Bugliosi lied.
Something I predict that you'll NEVER publicly admit...
Bugliosi lied about the "ragged" throat wound, and you know it.
You claim he needs no defense... YOU'RE A LIAR, PATRICK - he most certainly does need a defense against the very credible assertion that he lied.