+- 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... #3 Refuted. (/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-3-Refuted)
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #3 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 10-14-2016
Quote:(3) Oswald told Frazier he would NOT be coming back to Irving on Friday night.
First point... this is hearsay. It's also interesting to note that Frazier was very nearly arrested for the murder of JFK... his rifle was confiscated, and he was subjected to a forced lie detector test.
As well, Why would this be strange??? When Oswald got a ride with Frazier to go to Irving on a Thursday, it didn't mean that he was required then to also come back on Friday and stay the weekend.
What Bugliosi is doing here is starting with the presumption that Oswald is guilty,
then defining everything he did and said as evidence of the guilt he's already started with.
then defining everything he did and said as evidence of the guilt he's already started with.
Bugliosi knows very well that Oswald, while frequently visiting Marina on the weekends, did not ALWAYS visit on the weekends. (And he lied on that point...)
Interestingly, it seems that Oswald had intended to visit on the weekend, just not Friday night... from Marina's testimony:
Mr. RANKIN. When he said he would not be home that Friday evening, did you ask him why?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say?
Mrs. OSWALD. He said that since he was home on Thursday, that it wouldn't make any sense to come again on Friday, that he would come for the weekend.
"that he would come for the weekend." - this one little snippet belies the notion that Oswald had some sort of nefarious plan that would prevent him from visiting Marina – HE WAS PLANNING ON DOING SO.
This is a common theme among Warren Commission Believers – presuming Oswald's guilt, then going back and looking at everything he did or was presumed to have done in light of that guilt – portraying all actions as 'proving' the presumed guilt. But nothing Oswald did or said is contrary to his innocence, although no Believer would admit this fact.
Attempting to use hearsay of a man's future actions that have nothing whatsoever to do with murdering someone to 'prove' that he murdered the President is just another example of this reoccurring theme of presuming first the guilt, then examining all actions and statements to "prove" that guilt.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #3 Refuted. - Patrick C - 10-15-2016
Ben Holmes Wrote:"that he would come for the weekend." - this one little snippet belies the notion that Oswald had some sort of nefarious plan that would prevent him from visiting Marina – HE WAS PLANNING ON DOING SO.
All that means is that Oswald said he would come back for the weekend. What would you expect him to say...."no I won't be back as I am planning on shooting the president"....?
It could be the case that he planned on coming back over the weekend, but changed his mind and decided to get his gun and take a pot shot at Kennedy.....
Your post in meaningless, though thanks for reminding me that Marina had stated Lee said he would be back. I had forgot that snippet.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #3 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 10-16-2016
(10-15-2016, 02:42 PM)Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:"that he would come for the weekend." - this one little snippet belies the notion that Oswald had some sort of nefarious plan that would prevent him from visiting Marina – HE WAS PLANNING ON DOING SO.
All that means is that Oswald said he would come back for the weekend. What would you expect him to say...."no I won't be back as I am planning on shooting the president"....?
It could be the case that he planned on coming back over the weekend, but changed his mind and decided to get his gun and take a pot shot at Kennedy.....
Your post in meaningless, though thanks for reminding me that Marina had stated Lee said he would be back. I had forgot that snippet.
In science, as I'm sure you're quite well aware, a theory that cannot be falsified is meaningless. (See Karl Popper).
Equally, a theory that explains everything ... explains nothing.
Your theory is equally at home with Oswald planning to return on the weekend, or not planning to return on the weekend.
It doesn't matter WHAT the evidence shows, your theory can be modified to explain it.
So while my post showing the sillyness of Vincent Bugliosi's claimed evidence of guilt is quite unrefuted by you, your theory is shown to be quite non-falsifiable.
You lose.