+- 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... #38 Refuted. (/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-38-Refuted)
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #38 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 03-24-2017
(38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #38 Refuted. - Nick Principe - 03-24-2017
(03-24-2017, 05:47 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
It certainly speaks to Bugliosi's desperation, that he thinks a resident of Texas owning a gun should count as "irrefutable evidence" of non-conspiratorial guilt. Frankly in the state of Texas, it's more suspicious *not* to own a gun.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #38 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 03-25-2017
(03-24-2017, 06:33 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:(03-24-2017, 05:47 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
It certainly speaks to Bugliosi's desperation, that he thinks a resident of Texas owning a gun should count as "irrefutable evidence" of non-conspiratorial guilt. Frankly in the state of Texas, it's more suspicious *not* to own a gun.
That's true!
I can't say that I've ever done anything more than visit the great state of Texas, but it's pretty common knowledge that their laws are very friendly towards those who wish to own guns... and that owning a gun in Texas is fairly common.
It's worth noting that Bugliosi was in California, a state notoriously difficult for gun owners...
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #38 Refuted. - Hollywood - 03-25-2017
(03-25-2017, 01:14 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(03-24-2017, 06:33 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:(03-24-2017, 05:47 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote: (38) Oswald was the sole owner of the revolver found in his possession on arrest.
It's possible... I find the evidence that Oswald owned a pistol far stronger and more credible than that for the Mannlicher Carcano. But owning a pistol that wasn't used to shoot JFK and could not be ballistically matched by the FBI for the Tippit murder is just as credible evidence against Oswald as the thousands of other people in Dallas that day who owned a pistol.
Indeed, the police arresting Oswald all had pistols. The mere possession of a legally owned firearm has never been 'proof' that someone committed a crime.
It certainly speaks to Bugliosi's desperation, that he thinks a resident of Texas owning a gun should count as "irrefutable evidence" of non-conspiratorial guilt. Frankly in the state of Texas, it's more suspicious *not* to own a gun.
That's true!
I can't say that I've ever done anything more than visit the great state of Texas, but it's pretty common knowledge that their laws are very friendly towards those who wish to own guns... and that owning a gun in Texas is fairly common.
It's worth noting that Bugliosi was in California, a state notoriously difficult for gun owners...
One small problem - Oswald was seen emptying his pistol in or near some bushes near the Tippit shooting and was arrested with the pistol in his possession - doubting oswald's patently obvious guilt in the Tippit murder is an infallible sign of an irrational, biased mindset in favor of conspiracy despite the glaring absence of hard evidence proving the existence of such a plot.
RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #38 Refuted. - Ben Holmes - 03-25-2017
(03-25-2017, 02:04 AM)Hollywood Wrote:(03-25-2017, 01:14 AM)Ben Holmes Wrote:(03-24-2017, 06:33 PM)Nick Principe Wrote: It certainly speaks to Bugliosi's desperation, that he thinks a resident of Texas owning a gun should count as "irrefutable evidence" of non-conspiratorial guilt. Frankly in the state of Texas, it's more suspicious *not* to own a gun.
That's true!
I can't say that I've ever done anything more than visit the great state of Texas, but it's pretty common knowledge that their laws are very friendly towards those who wish to own guns... and that owning a gun in Texas is fairly common.
It's worth noting that Bugliosi was in California, a state notoriously difficult for gun owners...
One small problem - Oswald was seen emptying his pistol in or near some bushes near the Tippit shooting and was arrested with the pistol in his possession - doubting oswald's patently obvious guilt in the Tippit murder is an infallible sign of an irrational, biased mindset in favor of conspiracy despite the glaring absence of hard evidence proving the existence of such a plot.
This is a conflation of quite a bit of speculation and Warren Commission conclusions. It presumes facts never proven by the Warren Commission.
The first evidence from the scene was of automatic ammunition being used. A radio transmission by Sgt. Hill... Corroborated by Callaway:
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. That would be with the muzzle pointed upward, and with the arm bent at the elbow, is that right?
Which is, of course, how an automatic is held for reload. This fact was so damaging, that recently in another forum a believer actually had the sheer incredible dishonesty to say: "This would be no way to load an automatic."
It was to his misfortune that I've spent over a decade in the Marine Corps, and have loaded/reloaded an automatic many times, and am thoroughly familiar with the procedure.
Indeed, just a few days ago, I quizzed a friend who has a CCW here in California - which as those who live in California know, is not very easy to get... I didn't tell him I was questioning about the JFK case... I said merely: 'There's two people... both are reloading a pistol. One has his arm bent at the elbow, and the muzzle pointed up, the other has a straight arm, and the muzzle pointed down... who has the revolver, and who has the automatic?'
Yes... my friend guessed correctly and thought the answer was very obvious because he's familiar with guns (and in fact, was packing a 1911 .45 at the time!)
Callaway is simply unexplainable by believers... he corroborates the earliest, and most credible information on the pistol used. This is hard evidence.
It's not critics who are ignoring the evidence...
When you make the claim that people who don't believe your theory are demonstrating an "infallible sign of an irrational, biased mindset..." - you're merely committing a logical fallacy. This shows that you don't have a real argument to make, so you're trying to pre-emptively stop a critical review of what you post.