+- 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... #23 Refuted. (/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-23-Refuted)
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #23 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 12-15-2016
(23) In addition to getting a coat and his gun, Oswald changed trousers.
Answered previously in #21. Changing clothes after leaving work means nothing at all. He wasn't a murderer who needed to remove blood-stained clothing. That Bugliosi would attempt to assert that changing clothes after work when arriving home is evidence of guilt means that most of us are suspects.
Do YOU change clothes when you get home from work? If so, you'd better turn yourself into the local police, for I'm sure there's an unsolved murder somewhere in your vicinity.
Watch as Patrick runs from this one, as he's done from most of these refutations... Not that I blame Patrick, the evidence simply isn't there... nothing you can do about that.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #23 Refuted. - Lee Abbott - 12-15-2016
With arguments like that, no wonder "Reclaiming History" was an epic of nonsense Dale H. Hazy, Jr. believed.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #23 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 12-15-2016
(12-15-2016, 09:26 PM)Lee Abbott Wrote: With arguments like that, no wonder "Reclaiming History" was an epic of nonsense Dale H. Hazy, Jr. believed.
Indeed.
Believers simply cannot defend the nonsense that Bugliosi spouted in his desperate defense of the Warren Commission.
As anyone who's followed Patrick's attempts can see - it simply cannot be done. Believers are forced to show their cowardice, because they simply aren't honest enough to admit that the majority of these arguments are downright silly.
Take, for example - Bugliosi's claim that since Oswald wasn't seen by one particular witness reading a newspaper that day (despite, of course, that he HAD originally said that Oswald was reading a newspaper!!) - that he must be guilty of murder.
Or, as in this argument, that because he changed clothes after work, he's a murderer.
Patrick knows he cannot defend these silly assertions, and he's too dishonest to decry them for the nonsense that they are...