+- 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... #4 Refuted. (/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-4-Refuted)
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #4 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 10-16-2016
(4) That night Oswald avoided Kennedy talk with Marina, a subject it was their custom to discuss.
How silly! I ask readers - how many times do you FAIL to bring up, or discuss a topic? I'd be sentenced to multiple death sentences if this is all it took as evidence of crime. Bugliosi is clearly stretching in order to find "evidence" that Oswald was guilty.
Again, the same theme as I've mentioned before – presuming a person's guilt, then looking at all actions or statements as 'proof' of that guilt.
There are MILLIONS of people worldwide who last night did not discuss a favorite topic... should we expect to see a few million murders today? Yet this is the logic that Bugliosi employs.
And since Patrick has refused to speak of President Obama the last few WEEKS, we should hope for Patrick's sake for President Obama's good health.
For otherwise, Patrick would be indicted by Vincent Bugliosi for the crime.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #4 Refuted. - Lee Abbott - 10-16-2016
Patrick was accused of the crime by Bugliosi but managed to get himself cleared........ dishonestly, of course!
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #4 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 10-16-2016
(10-16-2016, 07:53 PM)Lee Abbott Wrote: Patrick was accused of the crime by Bugliosi but managed to get himself cleared........ dishonestly, of course!
Yes... Bugliosi accused Patrick of not reading the newspaper... and was therefore guilty of murder...
Oops... that's a preview of #9... which won't be posted until later this week...
Of course, on a more serious note... it's not only Patrick who cannot defend Bugliosi on these silly 53 reasons... it's every single believer online who's read my refutations... (Which is, of course, a large percentage of all believers online who post...)
Patrick is certainly knowledgeable enough to defend Bugliosi on these claims of his... if it were possible to do so.
But Patrick has has a very difficult start on the first three... and will increasingly fail as we go through all of them.
Many of these "reasons" have no logical credibility to them... such as not reading a newspaper is evidence that one is guilty of murder... just the silliest sort of nonsense that critics have learned to expect from believers.