[Ben Holmes]

(03-28-2017, 03:44 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-23-2017, 04:28 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  I note again that Hollywood has refused to support his previous contentions that I pointed out.

(03-23-2017, 02:31 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  At some point, critical mass is reached:  fingerprints on the boxes alone can be reasonably questioned - but when added to shirt fibers from Oswald's shirt on the murder weapon, his fingerprints on the weapon, the murder weapon itself being traced to Oswald himself, an eyewitness who watched him fire the third shot, the paper bag with fibers which closely matched the blanket in the Paine garage - it then becomes illogical to dismiss it all as planted or corrupted - we have reached critical mass. Bugliosi's #37 has STILL not been refuted - Oswald's prints WERE found on the boxes in the window - inserting comments about other employees handling those boxes just deflects attention from the fact that no refutation has been effectively offered.

This is an example of throwing everything except the kitchen sink into the mix.

It would take me hours to refute ALL of the statements just made...

But I'll stick to the topic, and refuse the moving of the goalposts...

Oswald's fingerprints IN HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT isn't proof of anything. PARTICULARLY SINCE WE HAVE UNEXPLAINED FINGERPRINTS ON THE SAME BOX!!!

It would be a stupid jury indeed to find that this is evidence of Oswald's guilt. Indeed, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE the reasonableness of my refutation.

So there are 52 others... this is only a single refutation... feel free to refute the rest IN THEIR APPROPRIATE THREADS... and I'll hasten to get the rest of the Bugliosi refutation posts posted here.

"This is an example of throwing everything except the kitchen sink into the mix."  And what comprises that "everything"? Just  a series of pieces of hard, credible evidence validating the conclusions of the WC - quibble with it all you like, twist it all around to fit a conspiracy narrative and there it still is in all its glory - forensic, hard evidence the likes of which conspracy "believers" have none of.

Pick one.

I'll be happy to demolish it.

But I won't waste my time when you try to throw in a ton of stuff all at once.

If you want, I'll do EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM... but each in it's own post.

My guess? You'll sneak away... and forget about it. You probably know by now that I know the evidence just as well as any believer, and can actually cite it.