+- 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... #12 Refuted. (/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-12-Refuted)
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #12 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 11-02-2016
(12) Kennedy's assassin was at the now-infamous sixth-floor window.
Unless you can put Oswald there, this has nothing whatsoever to do with indicting Oswald. This is like saying "
That Bugliosi can make such a statement shows his desperation... As I stated before, Bugliosi has a tendency to try to view ANYTHING as proof of Oswald's guilt.
And what's truly funny - is that I can't find a SINGLE believer honest enough to agree with the above refutation - despite the fact that they cannot argue with it. The simple truth is that if a believer is honest, he's ignorant of the evidence in this case.
If a believer knows the evidence, he can't be honest.
[Made a mistake with Nicole Brown Simpson's name... Corrected by a fellow critic]
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #12 Refuted. - Patrick C - 11-05-2016
Ben Holmes Wrote:The simple truth is that if a believer is honest, he's ignorant of the evidence in this case.
Absolute and abject tripe Ben.
Mike Majerus is not ignorant of the evidence, neither is Peter Knight, nor am I. Nor is DVP. In fact I would suggest that all three of those authors know more about the case than you do. I know one of them has one of the largest libraries on the case on our little blue planet.
And yet, they conclude that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. But then they are wise and apply skilled assimilation in respect of the evidence.
You on the other hand see up to 5 assassins and as many as 7 shots...I have a word for that....
CUCKOO......
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #12 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 11-05-2016
(11-05-2016, 12:50 PM)Patrick C Wrote:Ben Holmes Wrote:The simple truth is that if a believer is honest, he's ignorant of the evidence in this case.
Absolute and abject tripe Ben.
It would be if you could produce an honest believer who knows the evidence.
But you can't. You yourself are an excellent example - you know the evidence well enough to know, for example, that the majority of witnesses documented in the first two days pointed to the Grassy Knoll - YET YOU BLATANTLY LIE AND STATE THE PRECISE OPPOSITE!!
Or, a more recent example... you KNOW FOR A FACT what Kilduff actually said, yet you're unwilling to post a quote from him - BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT YOU ASSERTED HE'D SAID.
Those are lies. They aren't disagreements, or opinion... they are outright lies.
And, as you know, I can easily compile a long list of your lies, Patrick.
So for my statement above not to be absolutely true, you'd have to produce an honest believer. One that I can publicly cross-examine.
(11-05-2016, 12:50 PM)Patrick C Wrote: Mike Majerus is not ignorant of the evidence, neither is Peter Knight, nor am I. Nor is DVP. In fact I would suggest that all three of those authors know more about the case than you do. I know one of them has one of the largest libraries on the case on our little blue planet.
DVP is the only one who's posted in forums to my knowledge - and I've corrected him on the facts a number of times. Which would suggest that he doesn't know the case more than I do. He's certainly a liar as well, and if you so desire, I can quote him lying as well. Like I said, there's no such thing as an honest & knowledgeable believer.
Indeed, the fact that DVP is loath to debate me is evidence that he recognizes the depth of my knowledge on this case.
If Mike Majerus & Peter Knight accept the Warren Commission's theory, then they too are undoubtedly liars... and that could be easily demonstrated if they ever started publicly debating.
(11-05-2016, 12:50 PM)Patrick C Wrote: And yet, they conclude that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy.
It's truly amusing how you keep giving "facts" that cannot be vindicated... you name DVP, who's provably lied, then name two others whom have never engaged in public debate, to my knowledge... you yourself demonstrate that a knowledgeable believer cannot be honest.
(11-05-2016, 12:50 PM)Patrick C Wrote: But then they are wise and apply skilled assimilation in respect of the evidence.
Demonstrate it.
Produce a SINGLE believer willing to debate, and let's see if he's honest or not. You've produced two that their honesty cannot be judged, and one who's provably lied. Where's your evidence?
(11-05-2016, 12:50 PM)Patrick C Wrote: You on the other hand see up to 5 assassins and as many as 7 shots...I have a word for that....
CUCKOO......
Actually, it's the evidence that shows this, as you well know. Tell the truth, Patrick - how many shots, TO CONNALLY ALONE, did the medical testimony allow for?
P.S. Note that Patrick was unable to refute the actual point I made in respect to Bugliosi's "evidence" against Oswald.