[Ben Holmes]

(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It is getting rather commonplace that you Ben make the assertion that I will not respond to a post and when I do, you make no reference to the fact that your prediction was wrong.

Au contraire!

Anyone can note that my first post in this thread was posted in November... then A FULL MONTH LATER I pointed out your cowardice.

Only then did you deign to respond.

So no, Patrick... another provable lie on your part... YOU DID INDEED REFUSE TO RESPOND FOR AN ENTIRE MONTH... and only responded when I made fun of your cowardice...
 

(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  So in response to you assertion "nor will you"......

In the chapter entitled Summary of Oswald’s Guilt, Vincent Bugliosi writes on page 958 of Reclaiming History.:-
 
Oswald…
 
“If we are to believe Oswald’s story”……
 
“claiming in one version that he was having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting, and in another version that he was working on the sixth floor”. (as in the TSBD)

My interpretation is that Bugliosi  is clearly making reference to a version of events that Oswald was working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, he does not however cite for the latter scenario.

You're a liar, Patrick.

There's never been ANYONE who's made the claim that Oswald was "working on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting".

Certainly the Warren Commission made the claim that he was there at the time - but there has NEVER been any such claim from Oswald, or any critic, for that matter.

No wonder Bugliosi doesn't "cite"... he can't...
 

(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It would seem that  Bugliosi is saying that somewhere there is a statement from Oswald that he was up on the sixth floor when JFK was shot.

What a gutless liar you are!!!

You do know the term anachronism, right?

Tell us how you can justify something that happened about 40 minutes earlier as having taken place just before the shooting?

It's truly funny that you cannot admit that Bugliosi simply lied.

 

(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  This could either be a written statement from a witness such as individual from the DPD or FBI or Secret Service for example, or a recollection in an interview on film or even word of mouth from an individual who heard Oswald make that assertion.

The Dallas Police arrested 5 other people, two of which still had a smoking rifle in their possession... I can't recall where I read that, it might have been a written statement from Chief Curry, or perhaps it was an FBI or SS report... maybe it was a Youtube video I saw it on... or maybe even 17th hand word of mouth from my second cousin's great grandfather...

In any case, you should believe it.

 

(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  It may be a confused message and Oswald could have simply said he worked on the sixth floor leading up to the assassination.

Eitherway Buglisosi is indicating that there were at least two stories from Oswald on his location at the time of the shots.

You're a gutless liar, Patrick.

Anyone who's taken the time to read what Bugliosi actually said KNOWS VERY WELL THAT HE'S SPEAKING ABOUT THE ALLEGED INCIDENT WITH GIVEN'S. (Which even Bugliosi admits was around 11:55)

Can you say 'Anacronism', Patrick?

 

(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  I have not seen nor heard of the story that Oswald said he was on the 6th floor, but that does not make Bugliosi wrong.

You haven't seen the statement that I did, which shows that the DPD arrested five men with two smoking guns... but that doesn't make me wrong, does it Patrick?

So do you have the courage of your convictions to publicly state that I'm not wrong?
 

(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  If he is wrong, he could simply be mistaken and in error. That does not  make him a liar. However IF he has constructed that statement deliberately with no actual evidence then he is misleading the reader and that is a lie.

I would suggest that there is in fact a reasonable explanation.

Then simply provide it.

It's clear, that despite the fact that I pointed you to the chapter in Reclaiming History that I'm refuting, that you've been too busy to take the time to read it. Otherwise, you wouldn't be attempting to mislead people with your "opinions" about what Bugliosi actually said.

 

(12-11-2016, 01:56 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  But thank you for reminding me about the 53 points of guilt - what an EXCELLENT chapter "Summary of Oswald's Guilt" is. Really he does an outstanding job of demonstrating that Oswald acted alone beyond reasonable doubt.

The old addage that "you can't see the wood for the trees" is apt......in your case you can't see the wood for the twigs on the ground Holmes.

I guess the titles of these threads didn't clue you in on what the topic is...

And if your defense is no better than it has been thus far, Bugliosi is getting a very poor legacy indeed...