The following warnings occurred: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warning [2] A non-numeric value encountered - Line: 499 - File: inc/functions.php PHP 7.4.33 (Linux)
|
David Emerling's Cowardice... - Printable Version +- 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: David Emerling's Cowardice... (/Thread-David-Emerling-s-Cowardice) |
David Emerling's Cowardice... - Ben Holmes - 01-12-2017 David Emerling Wrote:I'm simply pointing out the importance of reading documents for yourself instead of having a biased organization interpret it for you. It happens so regularly that it's predictable. Believers make uncited assertions about 'Rush to Judgment' ... and virtually never even make the slightest attempt to support their claim. On the other hand, when I point out the lies told by Vincent Bugliosi - I do so fully capable of citing page numbers, and quoting his exact lies. As just one example: Vincent Bugliosi Wrote:"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413) Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually say this anywhere? What does the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be? Bugliosi claimed to have spent over 20 years studying this case, and could not POSSIBLY have been unaware of the actual description of the throat wound. So he lied. It's just as simple as that. Now David... do the same thing as I just did... make your assertion about Mark Lane's 'Rush to Judgment' again, then cite and quote an example that supports your claim. Or run like the coward you are... |