[Ben Holmes]

(10-30-2016, 08:20 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  You have no "organic" understing and appreciation  of the case Ben, 

You have no ability to weigh up the pros and cons.

I think it like defending a religion to you ....right...?

I think I have used up my 30 minutes on your site today for the week so hey

Pip Pip......

PS .....Is anyone else contributing? 

Shame you got banned from Amazon Ben - that was for calling people child molestors right....

Quite the coward, aren't you Patrick?

You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to get specific...

And by sticking with broad generalities, no counter argument can be raised.

Tell us Patrick, why are you so afraid to deal with the evidence in this case? You've been totally unable to refute this:

Quote:(10) Oswald's pretense with a co-worker that he didn't know JFK's route

Sheer speculation on Bugliosi's part. Before you can label this a 'pretense', you must show that Oswald knew for a fact that JFK would be passing in front of the building. Bugliosi has been unable to do this.

This is another example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.

... and merely whining ad hominems won't change that fact, will it?