1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK

  • Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons - #47 - Refuted

    From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jul 26 07:13:56 2023
    (47) Oswald lied about having seen the picture before.

    How can the truth be a lie? First you have to demonstrate the
    authenticity of these photos. Despite 50 years in which to do so -
    believers have not done this.

    This statement by Bugliosi, offered as proof that Oswald is guilty, is
    a classic logical fallacy. First presuming that the backyard photos
    are legitimate, then using Oswald's denial of them as proof that the
    photos are not only legitimate, but evidence of his guilt.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jul 27 06:52:05 2023
    (48) Oswald lied about living at the place where the picture with the
    rifle was taken.

    This is, of course, hearsay. We don't KNOW what Oswald said during interrogations, because no record was ever kept. Nor did anyone first
    admit to taking any notes - although some notes later showed up.

    Without the ability to cross-examine Oswald, we don't KNOW what any
    such denial means. How was the question worded? How EXACTLY did he
    answer it? What did he mean by his answer?

    Let's assume just for the sake of argument that he flat lied about
    living at a prior address... how would that support the theory that
    he's guilty of murder?

    Was the murder committed AT that address?

    Was there some connection with that address that would have offered
    support to the prosecution?

    Watch as David Von Pein ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to defend Bugliosi here,
    and "Bud" absolutely refuses to answer any of the questions.

    (Of course, John Corbett gave up long ago, and refuses to even *try*
    to refute these...)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BT George@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Thu Jul 27 07:18:30 2023
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:52:09 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    (48) Oswald lied about living at the place where the picture with the
    rifle was taken.

    This is, of course, hearsay. We don't KNOW what Oswald said during interrogations, because no record was ever kept. Nor did anyone first
    admit to taking any notes - although some notes later showed up.

    Without the ability to cross-examine Oswald, we don't KNOW what any
    such denial means. How was the question worded? How EXACTLY did he
    answer it? What did he mean by his answer?

    Let's assume just for the sake of argument that he flat lied about
    living at a prior address... how would that support the theory that
    he's guilty of murder?

    Was the murder committed AT that address?

    Was there some connection with that address that would have offered
    support to the prosecution?

    Watch as David Von Pein ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to defend Bugliosi here,
    and "Bud" absolutely refuses to answer any of the questions.

    (Of course, John Corbett gave up long ago, and refuses to even *try*
    to refute these...)

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to BT George on Thu Jul 27 08:34:25 2023
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32 AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??

    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to gjjmail1202@gmail.com on Thu Jul 27 09:17:19 2023
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 08:34:25 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32?AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??

    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.

    Indeed!

    But in fact, this forum's foremost defender of Vincent Bugliosi is Von
    Penis - and he actually acknowledges the truth of some of my points,
    but absolutely REFUSES to try to defend Bugs from these issues,
    because he simply cannot.

    That's the essential answer to the troll's question - they aren't
    being refuted because THEY CAN'T BE REFUTED.

    And that fact tells the tale.

    As Gil implies, you're a coward for not stepping up to the plate and
    refuting these posts.

    But the truth is, you simply can't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bud@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Thu Jul 27 10:38:48 2023
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:17:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 08:34:25 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32?AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??

    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.
    Indeed!

    But in fact, this forum's foremost defender of Vincent Bugliosi is Von
    Penis - and he actually acknowledges the truth of some of my points,
    but absolutely REFUSES to try to defend Bugs from these issues,
    because he simply cannot.

    You refuse to address Bugliosi`s actual arguments.

    That's the essential answer to the troll's question - they aren't
    being refuted because THEY CAN'T BE REFUTED.

    You two keep throwing the word "refute" around. It doesn`t look like either of you know what it means.

    And that fact tells the tale.

    As Gil implies, you're a coward for not stepping up to the plate and refuting these posts.

    You aren`t refuting Bugliosi`s arguments.

    But the truth is, you simply can't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BT George@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Thu Jul 27 12:26:28 2023
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 11:17:23 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 08:34:25 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32?AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??

    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.
    Indeed!

    But in fact, this forum's foremost defender of Vincent Bugliosi is Von
    Penis - and he actually acknowledges the truth of some of my points,
    but absolutely REFUSES to try to defend Bugs from these issues,
    because he simply cannot.

    That's the essential answer to the troll's question - they aren't
    being refuted because THEY CAN'T BE REFUTED.

    And that fact tells the tale.

    As Gil implies, you're a coward for not stepping up to the plate and refuting these posts.

    But the truth is, you simply can't.

    To your troll-like satisfaction. Of *that* I am sure!

    BTW, when are you going to *honestly* deal with Bugliosi's *cumulative* argument instead of hiding behind summaries of them or disputing this or that claim. Remember "ragged" where I already *showed* there was a far more charitable explanation of VB's
    statement? https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Ugq5vKKxGrw/m/lVWT8l8oBQAJ

    Prediction. You will either ignore this by hiding behind your Killfilter, or you will *dishonestly* and*incompletely* deal with it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BT George@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Thu Jul 27 12:22:02 2023
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:34:27 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32 AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??
    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.

    Do you not understand the implication of what I was saying? Clearly not.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chuck Schuyler@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Thu Jul 27 12:46:33 2023
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:34:27 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32 AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??
    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.

    What would you accept as refutation?

    Regardless, you're shifting the burden. The photos were examined and found to be authentic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bud@21:1/5 to Chuck Schuyler on Thu Jul 27 13:00:19 2023
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 3:46:34 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:34:27 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32 AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??
    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.
    What would you accept as refutation?

    Regardless, you're shifting the burden. The photos were examined and found to be authentic.

    This has been the problem all along, the conspiracy folks say things, and they think what they say becomes the default. That the photos were concocted has always been the fantastic and extraordinary idea that was theirs to show was valid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to chuckschuyler123@gmail.com on Thu Jul 27 13:02:08 2023
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:34:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32?AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??
    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.

    What would you accept as refutation?


    This is a question you always ask when you know you have nothing.


    Regardless, you're shifting the burden. The photos were examined and found to be authentic.


    It's your burden... Carry your burden coward.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chuck Schuyler@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Jul 28 06:24:20 2023
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 3:02:12 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:34:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32?AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??
    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.

    What would you accept as refutation?

    This is a question you always ask when you know you have nothing.

    This is a question I always ask when I know you have nothing.


    Regardless, you're shifting the burden. The photos were examined and found to be authentic.

    It's your burden... Carry your burden coward.

    Circular. You know the evidence. You know how the BY photos were authenticated. You're not accepting this work, so I'm asking you what type of "authentication" would meet your undefined, always shifting standards?

    We know the answer is that there is NOTHING that could be done or offered to you to prove to your satisfaction that Marina took those photos with a cheap little camera, so why are you--the one who's making the claim that they're false when multiple
    investigations show they're legitimate--asking somebody to provide tests that you're going to reject?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to chuckschuyler123@gmail.com on Fri Jul 28 08:06:21 2023
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 3:02:12?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
    <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:34:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32?AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??
    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.

    What would you accept as refutation?

    This is a question you always ask when you know you have nothing.

    This is a question I always ask when I know you have nothing.


    It's a FACT that you've still refused to answer the question.

    You simply run from questions...


    Regardless, you're shifting the burden. The photos were examined and found to be authentic.

    It's your burden... Carry your burden coward.

    Circular.


    Yep. I ask, you refuse. I ask again, you run. I continue to ask, you
    continue to run.

    Proving your cowardice.

    What happened on 11/22/63?


    You know the evidence.


    Indeed I do. Far better than you do.


    You know how the BY photos were authenticated.


    Ah! The famous "When did you stop molesting your mother?" question.

    Can you answer it?


    I deleted the rest of your logical fallacies.

    You're a coward, Chuckles, and you can't prove otherwise.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chuck Schuyler@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Jul 28 08:28:52 2023
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:06:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 3:02:12?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
    <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:34:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32?AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??
    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.

    What would you accept as refutation?

    This is a question you always ask when you know you have nothing.

    This is a question I always ask when I know you have nothing.
    It's a FACT that you've still refused to answer the question.

    You simply run from questions...
    Regardless, you're shifting the burden. The photos were examined and found to be authentic.

    It's your burden... Carry your burden coward.

    Circular.

    Yep. I ask, you refuse. I ask again, you run. I continue to ask, you continue to run.

    Then move on.

    Proving your cowardice.

    Then why continue?

    What happened on 11/22/63?

    One of us knows.


    You know the evidence.


    Indeed I do. Far better than you do.

    And this leads you to believe that on 11/22/63, some people did something?

    You know how the BY photos were authenticated.

    Ah! The famous "When did you stop molesting your mother?" question.

    Can you answer it?


    I deleted the rest of your logical fallacies.

    You're a coward, Chuckles, and you can't prove otherwise.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to chuckschuyler123@gmail.com on Fri Jul 28 09:03:25 2023
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:06:25?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
    <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 3:02:12?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
    <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:34:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32?AM UTC-4, BT George wrote: >>>>>>>
    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??
    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.

    What would you accept as refutation?

    This is a question you always ask when you know you have nothing.

    This is a question I always ask when I know you have nothing.
    It's a FACT that you've still refused to answer the question.

    You simply run from questions...
    Regardless, you're shifting the burden. The photos were examined and found to be authentic.

    It's your burden... Carry your burden coward.

    Circular.

    Yep. I ask, you refuse. I ask again, you run. I continue to ask, you
    continue to run.


    Eristic whining deleted.


    Proving your cowardice.


    More eristic whining deleted.


    What happened on 11/22/63?


    Logical fallacy deleted. Chuckles continues to refuse to answer the
    question.


    You know the evidence.


    Indeed I do. Far better than you do.

    And ...


    It means that I know the evidence far better than you.

    What part didn't you understand?


    You know how the BY photos were authenticated.

    Ah! The famous "When did you stop molesting your mother?" question.

    Can you answer it?


    Clearly not.


    I deleted the rest of your logical fallacies.

    You're a coward, Chuckles, and you can't prove otherwise.


    And Chuckles **STILL** refuses to say what happened on 11/22/63.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chuck Schuyler@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Jul 28 11:48:50 2023
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:03:28 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:06:25?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
    <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 3:02:12?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
    <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:34:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32?AM UTC-4, BT George wrote: >>>>>>>
    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??
    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.

    What would you accept as refutation?

    This is a question you always ask when you know you have nothing.

    This is a question I always ask when I know you have nothing.
    It's a FACT that you've still refused to answer the question.

    You simply run from questions...
    Regardless, you're shifting the burden. The photos were examined and found to be authentic.

    It's your burden... Carry your burden coward.

    Circular.

    Yep. I ask, you refuse. I ask again, you run. I continue to ask, you
    continue to run.
    Eristic whining deleted.


    Proving your cowardice.


    More eristic whining deleted.


    What happened on 11/22/63?


    Logical fallacy deleted. Chuckles continues to refuse to answer the question.
    You know the evidence.


    Indeed I do. Far better than you do.

    And ...


    It means that I know the evidence far better than you.

    What part didn't you understand?
    You know how the BY photos were authenticated.

    Ah! The famous "When did you stop molesting your mother?" question.

    Can you answer it?
    Clearly not.
    I deleted the rest of your logical fallacies.

    You're a coward, Chuckles, and you can't prove otherwise.

    And Chuckles **STILL** refuses to say what happened on 11/22/63.

    Author Aldous Huxley died?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to chuckschuyler123@gmail.com on Fri Jul 28 11:50:56 2023
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:48:50 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 11:03:28?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
    <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:06:25?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
    <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 3:02:12?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:46:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
    <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:34:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32?AM UTC-4, BT George wrote: >>>>>>>>>
    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??
    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.

    What would you accept as refutation?

    This is a question you always ask when you know you have nothing.

    This is a question I always ask when I know you have nothing.
    It's a FACT that you've still refused to answer the question.

    You simply run from questions...
    Regardless, you're shifting the burden. The photos were examined and found to be authentic.

    It's your burden... Carry your burden coward.

    Circular.

    Yep. I ask, you refuse. I ask again, you run. I continue to ask, you
    continue to run.
    Eristic whining deleted.


    Proving your cowardice.


    More eristic whining deleted.


    What happened on 11/22/63?


    Logical fallacy deleted. Chuckles continues to refuse to answer the
    question.
    You know the evidence.


    Indeed I do. Far better than you do.

    And ...


    It means that I know the evidence far better than you.

    What part didn't you understand?
    You know how the BY photos were authenticated.

    Ah! The famous "When did you stop molesting your mother?" question.

    Can you answer it?
    Clearly not.
    I deleted the rest of your logical fallacies.

    You're a coward, Chuckles, and you can't prove otherwise.

    And Chuckles **STILL** refuses to say what happened on 11/22/63.

    Author Aldous Huxley died?

    Chuckles thinks he's pretending stupidity... but it's not a pretense.
    He really *can't* tell us what happened on 11/22/63. Even in a forum
    dedicated to that topic.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 3 07:00:28 2023
    On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 13:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
    wrote:

    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 3:46:34?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:34:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:18:32?AM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

    The foregoing statements are disingenuous and meaningless rubbish. Why are they not being refuted!??
    Why are you calling for someone else to refute them ?
    Refute them.
    What would you accept as refutation?

    Regardless, you're shifting the burden. The photos were examined and found to be authentic.

    This has been the problem all along, we believers say things, and
    we think that what the WCR said is the default

    Nothing to add to that admission...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)