The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was
unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; >January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he
cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was
unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 07:28:55 -0700, Ben Holmes <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is >evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was >unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical >review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; >January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he >cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER >POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...Notice folks, that both Corbutt and Chickenshit have refused to defend
Von Penis, and what a kook he is.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:57:37?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:28:59?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,How can you "refute" arguments you don`t even understand?
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi wasThis has been explained to you. It was a change from his usual pattern.
unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP;
January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would thinkYou weren`t addressing Bugliosi`s actual arguments so I mostly ignored the series.
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he
cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
It was posted by Ben Holmes. That reason enough to ignore it.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:28:59 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)How can you "refute" arguments you don`t even understand?
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading aThis has been explained to you. It was a change from his usual pattern.
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ranYou weren`t addressing Bugliosi`s actual arguments so I mostly ignored the series.
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was
unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; >January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he
cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:24:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:57:37?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 10:28:59?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, >>> and David simply refused to engage in debate.How can you "refute" arguments you don`t even understand?
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) >>> to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was >>> unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt toThis has been explained to you. It was a change from his usual pattern. >>> David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic. >>>
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS >>> A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing >>> his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; >>> January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he >>> cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going toYou weren`t addressing Bugliosi`s actual arguments so I mostly ignored the series.
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try >>> to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that >>> what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran >>> from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
It was posted by Ben Holmes. That reason enough to ignore it.Ah! So here's another kook who actually thinks reading a newspaper is evidence of murder!!!
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was
unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 9:28:59?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was
unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP;
January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he
cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
You're trotting out two logical fallacies here.
1.) Straw man argument. You are deliberately misstating DVP's
position regarding Bugliosi's list.
In fact, you link
to DVP's statement that, "Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments
(when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated
individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows
the basic facts of the JFK murder case," and then you continue to
misstate what he's writing. Shame on you
There is no where in DVP's writings where he states reading a
newspaper is evidence of Oswald as a murderer.
There is no where in his writings where he claims any of the other
things you list individually prove Oswald is a murderer.
It's the totality of the items, not each individual item. He makes
this clear,
and then you waste thousands of words misstating what he
wrote. You're an ass.
2.) The other logical fallacy you're employing is called a fallacy
of division, which is the opposite of a fallacy of composition, one
of your favorites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
The example given in the definition I linked to is:
1.) The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream.
2.) Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary.
3.) Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream.
Carried over to the JFK assassination, this fallacy you are
attributing to DVP or Bugliosi might play out something like this:
1.) JFK was murdered by shots from the TSBD, where a newspaper
reporting the motorcade route could be found.
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald often read the newspaper at the TSBD.
3.) Therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK.
Literally NO ONE is claiming any items listed by Bugs prove Oswald
is a murderer, INDIVIDUALLY. It's the TOTALITY.
You know this, but you keep arguing the opposite.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 9:28:59?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was
unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP;
January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he
cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
You're trotting out two logical fallacies here.I predict that you won't quote a single one.
1.) Straw man argument. You are deliberately misstating DVP'sAs I QUOTED HIM DIRECTLY - you're simply lying.
position regarding Bugliosi's list.
In fact, you link
And QUOTE - don't forget to add that in your haste to lie about what I posted.
to DVP's statement that, "Virtually all of Bugliosi's argumentsYou haven't quoted me "misstating" what I QUOTED him saying. Indeed,
(when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows
the basic facts of the JFK murder case," and then you continue to
misstate what he's writing. Shame on you
you took *YOUR* quote directly from *MY* post.
And refused to quote anyplace where I misstated anything.
Shame on you for your blatant lie.
There is no where in DVP's writings where he states reading aSorry stupid, but this *IS* what Bugliosi claimed, and it *IS* a part
newspaper is evidence of Oswald as a murderer.
of the list that Von Penis refused to refute.
Indeed, he was quite explicit in stating that he *DID* believe this,
because he blocked out the two items he felt didn't belong on this
list.
So you're simply lying, aren't you?
There is no where in his writings where he claims any of the otherSorry moron, but this is the list Bugliosi came up with to prove
things you list individually prove Oswald is a murderer.
Oswald guilty of murder.
You RAN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE when I posted all 53 of them, and had nothing at all to say... now you're trying to whine when I merely
point out the FACT that Von Penis ran.
Amusingly, a FACT that you still can't publicly acknowledge.
It's the totality of the items, not each individual item. He makesAs did I. You took YOUR quote directly from this post.
this clear,
and then you waste thousands of words misstating what heThis is indeed what he claimed. It is indeed, WHAT I QUOTED HIM
wrote. You're an ass.
SAYING.
Then I addressed EXACTLY WHAT I QUOTED HIM SAYING.
You've been a complete failure at quoting any "misstatement" on my
part. A COMPLETE FAILURE!!
Why is that, Chuckles?
If you're telling the truth, WHY CAN'T YOU QUOTE ME???
2.) The other logical fallacy you're employing is called a fallacyCan you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's the logical
of division, which is the opposite of a fallacy of composition, one
of your favorites.
fallacy of division?
Can you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's a fallacy of composition? That should be easy to do if, as YOU claim, it's my
"favorite."
Watch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer either challenge. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
The example given in the definition I linked to is:
1.) The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream.Provably an example that you can't show I committed.
2.) Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary.
3.) Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream.
Carried over to the JFK assassination, this fallacy you are
attributing to DVP or Bugliosi might play out something like this:
1.) JFK was murdered by shots from the TSBD, where a newspaperLiterally, a statement I have *NEVER* made. So you've already failed
reporting the motorcade route could be found.
even when you just get started.
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald often read the newspaper at the TSBD.Tut tut tut... STUPID!!! He must have EVERY SINGLE DAY read a
newspaper, in order for the one day he didn't to mean anything.
He cannot have "often" read, he must *ALWAYS* have read.
If he only "often" read, then the days he didn't mean nothing...
And indeed, the earliest evidence is that he read a newspaper that
day.
It's **YOU** that is claiming that this is evidence of murder. What a
KOOK you are!
Indeed, *NOT* reading a newspaper would not be evidence of murder if
you filmed him with a gun in his hand, smoking, with the victim lying
dead in front of him, and 97 witnesses in a circle surrounding the
murder scene.
3.) Therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK.This indeed is your claim. It's Von Penis' claim, it's Bugliosi's
claim, it's Huckster's claim, it's Chickenshit's claim, it's Steven's
claim.
But it's not *MY* claim. I'm quite clearly arguing AGAINST such a
wacky claim.
Nor can you cannot show a *SINGLE* STATEMENT (out of the above
invented statements) was made by me. You're merely creating things
out of whole cloth.
You can't quote me.
YOU CAN'T QUOTE ME!
You're merely molesting Von Penis...
Literally NO ONE is claiming any items listed by Bugs prove OswaldSorry stupid. 0 + 0 still equals 0.
is a murderer, INDIVIDUALLY. It's the TOTALITY.
As I demonstrated above, you can't add the lack of reading a newspaper
to a KNOWN GUILTY MURDERER, and have it mean anything.
You know this, but you keep arguing the opposite.You were silent throughtout the 53 claims of Bugliosi.
*NOW* you want to speak up.
Sorry... you lost that right.
Why not go back to it: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/r1N7PwTsUl4/m/gGddMPxIDgAJ
And answer it there.
Then you'll have more crediblity.
(Blatant and REAL logical fallacies snipped)
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:26:35?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:then lie when your lies are pointed out. Literally NO ONE says any one of the individual items is "proof" that Oswald is a murderer. Cumulatively, the various items show a pattern that inferences can be drawn from. You're a liar. You're a lying liar who
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:22:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT), Chuck SchuylerWrong.
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 9:28:59?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:I predict that you won't quote a single one.
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, >>>>> and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder. >>>>>
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) >>>>> to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was >>>>> unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part >>>>> of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical >>>>> review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic. >>>>>
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS >>>>> A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item >>>>> #41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing >>>>> his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; >>>>> January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think >>>>> that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he >>>>> cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try >>>>> to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that >>>>> what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran >>>>> from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
You're trotting out two logical fallacies here.
1.) Straw man argument. You are deliberately misstating DVP'sAs I QUOTED HIM DIRECTLY - you're simply lying.
position regarding Bugliosi's list.
In fact, you link
And QUOTE - don't forget to add that in your haste to lie about what I
posted.
to DVP's statement that, "Virtually all of Bugliosi's argumentsYou haven't quoted me "misstating" what I QUOTED him saying. Indeed,
(when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated
individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows
the basic facts of the JFK murder case," and then you continue to
misstate what he's writing. Shame on you
you took *YOUR* quote directly from *MY* post.
And refused to quote anyplace where I misstated anything.
Shame on you for your blatant lie.
There is no where in DVP's writings where he states reading aSorry stupid, but this *IS* what Bugliosi claimed, and it *IS* a part
newspaper is evidence of Oswald as a murderer.
of the list that Von Penis refused to refute.
Indeed, he was quite explicit in stating that he *DID* believe this,
because he blocked out the two items he felt didn't belong on this
list.
So you're simply lying, aren't you?
There is no where in his writings where he claims any of the otherSorry moron, but this is the list Bugliosi came up with to prove
things you list individually prove Oswald is a murderer.
Oswald guilty of murder.
You RAN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE when I posted all 53 of them, and had
nothing at all to say... now you're trying to whine when I merely
point out the FACT that Von Penis ran.
Amusingly, a FACT that you still can't publicly acknowledge.
It's the totality of the items, not each individual item. He makesAs did I. You took YOUR quote directly from this post.
this clear,
and then you waste thousands of words misstating what heThis is indeed what he claimed. It is indeed, WHAT I QUOTED HIM
wrote. You're an ass.
SAYING.
Then I addressed EXACTLY WHAT I QUOTED HIM SAYING.
You've been a complete failure at quoting any "misstatement" on my
part. A COMPLETE FAILURE!!
Why is that, Chuckles?
If you're telling the truth, WHY CAN'T YOU QUOTE ME???
2.) The other logical fallacy you're employing is called a fallacyCan you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's the logical
of division, which is the opposite of a fallacy of composition, one
of your favorites.
fallacy of division?
Can you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's a fallacy of
composition? That should be easy to do if, as YOU claim, it's my
"favorite."
Watch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer either challenge. >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
Provably an example that you can't show I committed.
The example given in the definition I linked to is:
1.) The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream. >>>>2.) Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary.
3.) Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream.
Carried over to the JFK assassination, this fallacy you areLiterally, a statement I have *NEVER* made. So you've already failed
attributing to DVP or Bugliosi might play out something like this:
1.) JFK was murdered by shots from the TSBD, where a newspaper
reporting the motorcade route could be found.
even when you just get started.
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald often read the newspaper at the TSBD.Tut tut tut... STUPID!!! He must have EVERY SINGLE DAY read a
newspaper, in order for the one day he didn't to mean anything.
He cannot have "often" read, he must *ALWAYS* have read.
If he only "often" read, then the days he didn't mean nothing...
And indeed, the earliest evidence is that he read a newspaper that
day.
It's **YOU** that is claiming that this is evidence of murder. What a
KOOK you are!
Indeed, *NOT* reading a newspaper would not be evidence of murder if
you filmed him with a gun in his hand, smoking, with the victim lying
dead in front of him, and 97 witnesses in a circle surrounding the
murder scene.
3.) Therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK.This indeed is your claim. It's Von Penis' claim, it's Bugliosi's
claim, it's Huckster's claim, it's Chickenshit's claim, it's Steven's
claim.
But it's not *MY* claim. I'm quite clearly arguing AGAINST such a
wacky claim.
Nor can you cannot show a *SINGLE* STATEMENT (out of the above
invented statements) was made by me. You're merely creating things
out of whole cloth.
You can't quote me.
YOU CAN'T QUOTE ME!
You're merely molesting Von Penis...
Literally NO ONE is claiming any items listed by Bugs prove OswaldSorry stupid. 0 + 0 still equals 0.
is a murderer, INDIVIDUALLY. It's the TOTALITY.
As I demonstrated above, you can't add the lack of reading a newspaper
to a KNOWN GUILTY MURDERER, and have it mean anything.
You know this, but you keep arguing the opposite.You were silent throughtout the 53 claims of Bugliosi.
*NOW* you want to speak up.
Sorry... you lost that right.
Why not go back to it:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/r1N7PwTsUl4/m/gGddMPxIDgAJ >>>
And answer it there.
Then you'll have more crediblity.
(Blatant and REAL logical fallacies snipped)
Arguing to argue. Eristic argumentation. More knots to untangle, more tar babies to fight, and on and on. You deliberately lie about what DVP wrote about Bugliosi's "53 reasons," and you lie about what Bugliosi's points are about the 53 reasons. You
The truth to you is like sunlight to a vampire.
Keep lying Ben. It's all you have left.
Fish got to swim. Birds got to fly. Benny has got to lie. It's in his DNA.
There's two ways to know when Benny is lying. One is if his lips are moving. The other is if he
is typing on his keyboard.
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:22:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 9:28:59?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:I predict that you won't quote a single one.
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, >>>> and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was
unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing >>>> his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; >>>> January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he >>>> cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try >>>> to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
You're trotting out two logical fallacies here.
1.) Straw man argument. You are deliberately misstating DVP'sAs I QUOTED HIM DIRECTLY - you're simply lying.
position regarding Bugliosi's list.
In fact, you link
And QUOTE - don't forget to add that in your haste to lie about what I
posted.
to DVP's statement that, "Virtually all of Bugliosi's argumentsYou haven't quoted me "misstating" what I QUOTED him saying. Indeed,
(when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated
individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows
the basic facts of the JFK murder case," and then you continue to
misstate what he's writing. Shame on you
you took *YOUR* quote directly from *MY* post.
And refused to quote anyplace where I misstated anything.
Shame on you for your blatant lie.
There is no where in DVP's writings where he states reading aSorry stupid, but this *IS* what Bugliosi claimed, and it *IS* a part
newspaper is evidence of Oswald as a murderer.
of the list that Von Penis refused to refute.
Indeed, he was quite explicit in stating that he *DID* believe this,
because he blocked out the two items he felt didn't belong on this
list.
So you're simply lying, aren't you?
There is no where in his writings where he claims any of the other
things you list individually prove Oswald is a murderer.
Sorry moron, but this is the list Bugliosi came up with to prove
Oswald guilty of murder.
You RAN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE when I posted all 53 of them, and had
nothing at all to say... now you're trying to whine when I merely
point out the FACT that Von Penis ran.
Amusingly, a FACT that you still can't publicly acknowledge.
It's the totality of the items, not each individual item. He makes
this clear,
As did I. You took YOUR quote directly from this post.
and then you waste thousands of words misstating what he
wrote. You're an ass.
This is indeed what he claimed. It is indeed, WHAT I QUOTED HIM
SAYING.
Then I addressed EXACTLY WHAT I QUOTED HIM SAYING.
You've been a complete failure at quoting any "misstatement" on my
part. A COMPLETE FAILURE!!
Why is that, Chuckles?
If you're telling the truth, WHY CAN'T YOU QUOTE ME???
2.) The other logical fallacy you're employing is called a fallacy
of division, which is the opposite of a fallacy of composition, one
of your favorites.
Can you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's the logical
fallacy of division?
Can you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's a fallacy of
composition? That should be easy to do if, as YOU claim, it's my
"favorite."
Watch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer either challenge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
The example given in the definition I linked to is:
1.) The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream.
2.) Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary.
3.) Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream.
Provably an example that you can't show I committed.
Carried over to the JFK assassination, this fallacy you are
attributing to DVP or Bugliosi might play out something like this:
1.) JFK was murdered by shots from the TSBD, where a newspaper
reporting the motorcade route could be found.
Literally, a statement I have *NEVER* made. So you've already failed
even when you just get started.
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald often read the newspaper at the TSBD.
Tut tut tut... STUPID!!! He must have EVERY SINGLE DAY read a
newspaper, in order for the one day he didn't to mean anything.
He cannot have "often" read, he must *ALWAYS* have read.
If he only "often" read, then the days he didn't mean nothing...
And indeed, the earliest evidence is that he read a newspaper that
day.
It's **YOU** that is claiming that this is evidence of murder. What a
KOOK you are!
Indeed, *NOT* reading a newspaper would not be evidence of murder if
you filmed him with a gun in his hand, smoking, with the victim lying
dead in front of him, and 97 witnesses in a circle surrounding the
murder scene.
3.) Therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK.
This indeed is your claim. It's Von Penis' claim, it's Bugliosi's
claim, it's Huckster's claim, it's Chickenshit's claim, it's Steven's
claim.
But it's not *MY* claim. I'm quite clearly arguing AGAINST such a
wacky claim.
Nor can you cannot show a *SINGLE* STATEMENT (out of the above
invented statements) was made by me. You're merely creating things
out of whole cloth.
You can't quote me.
YOU CAN'T QUOTE ME!
You're merely molesting Von Penis...
Literally NO ONE is claiming any items listed by Bugs prove Oswald
is a murderer, INDIVIDUALLY. It's the TOTALITY.
Sorry stupid. 0 + 0 still equals 0.
As I demonstrated above, you can't add the lack of reading a newspaper
to a KNOWN GUILTY MURDERER, and have it mean anything.
You know this, but you keep arguing the opposite.You were silent throughtout the 53 claims of Bugliosi.
*NOW* you want to speak up.
Sorry... you lost that right.
Why not go back to it:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/r1N7PwTsUl4/m/gGddMPxIDgAJ >>
And answer it there.
Then you'll have more crediblity.
(Blatant and REAL logical fallacies snipped)
Wrong.
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:22:17 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 9:28:59?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, >> and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) >> to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was >> unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic. >>
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS >> A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing >> his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; >> January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he >> cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try >> to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that >> what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran >> from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
You're trotting out two logical fallacies here.I predict that you won't quote a single one.
1.) Straw man argument. You are deliberately misstating DVP'sAs I QUOTED HIM DIRECTLY - you're simply lying.
position regarding Bugliosi's list.
In fact, you link
And QUOTE - don't forget to add that in your haste to lie about what I posted.
to DVP's statement that, "Virtually all of Bugliosi's argumentsYou haven't quoted me "misstating" what I QUOTED him saying. Indeed,
(when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows
the basic facts of the JFK murder case," and then you continue to misstate what he's writing. Shame on you
you took *YOUR* quote directly from *MY* post.
And refused to quote anyplace where I misstated anything.
Shame on you for your blatant lie.
There is no where in DVP's writings where he states reading aSorry stupid, but this *IS* what Bugliosi claimed, and it *IS* a part
newspaper is evidence of Oswald as a murderer.
of the list that Von Penis refused to refute.
Indeed, he was quite explicit in stating that he *DID* believe this, because he blocked out the two items he felt didn't belong on this
list.
So you're simply lying, aren't you?
There is no where in his writings where he claims any of the other things you list individually prove Oswald is a murderer.Sorry moron, but this is the list Bugliosi came up with to prove
Oswald guilty of murder.
You RAN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE when I posted all 53 of them, and had nothing at all to say... now you're trying to whine when I merely
point out the FACT that Von Penis ran.
Amusingly, a FACT that you still can't publicly acknowledge.
It's the totality of the items, not each individual item. He makesAs did I. You took YOUR quote directly from this post.
this clear,
and then you waste thousands of words misstating what heThis is indeed what he claimed. It is indeed, WHAT I QUOTED HIM
wrote. You're an ass.
SAYING.
Then I addressed EXACTLY WHAT I QUOTED HIM SAYING.
You've been a complete failure at quoting any "misstatement" on my
part. A COMPLETE FAILURE!!
Why is that, Chuckles?
If you're telling the truth, WHY CAN'T YOU QUOTE ME???
2.) The other logical fallacy you're employing is called a fallacyCan you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's the logical fallacy of division?
of division, which is the opposite of a fallacy of composition, one
of your favorites.
Can you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's a fallacy of composition? That should be easy to do if, as YOU claim, it's my "favorite."
Watch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer either challenge. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
The example given in the definition I linked to is:
1.) The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream. >2.) Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary.Provably an example that you can't show I committed.
3.) Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream.
Carried over to the JFK assassination, this fallacy you are
attributing to DVP or Bugliosi might play out something like this:
1.) JFK was murdered by shots from the TSBD, where a newspaperLiterally, a statement I have *NEVER* made. So you've already failed
reporting the motorcade route could be found.
even when you just get started.
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald often read the newspaper at the TSBD.Tut tut tut... STUPID!!! He must have EVERY SINGLE DAY read a
newspaper, in order for the one day he didn't to mean anything.
He cannot have "often" read, he must *ALWAYS* have read.
If he only "often" read, then the days he didn't mean nothing...
And indeed, the earliest evidence is that he read a newspaper that
day.
It's **YOU** that is claiming that this is evidence of murder. What a
KOOK you are!
Indeed, *NOT* reading a newspaper would not be evidence of murder if
you filmed him with a gun in his hand, smoking, with the victim lying
dead in front of him, and 97 witnesses in a circle surrounding the
murder scene.
3.) Therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK.This indeed is your claim. It's Von Penis' claim, it's Bugliosi's
claim, it's Huckster's claim, it's Chickenshit's claim, it's Steven's claim.
But it's not *MY* claim. I'm quite clearly arguing AGAINST such a
wacky claim.
Nor can you cannot show a *SINGLE* STATEMENT (out of the above
invented statements) was made by me. You're merely creating things
out of whole cloth.
You can't quote me.
YOU CAN'T QUOTE ME!
You're merely molesting Von Penis...
Literally NO ONE is claiming any items listed by Bugs prove OswaldSorry stupid. 0 + 0 still equals 0.
is a murderer, INDIVIDUALLY. It's the TOTALITY.
As I demonstrated above, you can't add the lack of reading a newspaper
to a KNOWN GUILTY MURDERER, and have it mean anything.
You know this, but you keep arguing the opposite.You were silent throughtout the 53 claims of Bugliosi.
*NOW* you want to speak up.
Sorry... you lost that right.
Why not go back to it: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/r1N7PwTsUl4/m/gGddMPxIDgAJ
And answer it there.
Then you'll have more crediblity.
then lie when your lies are pointed out. Literally NO ONE says any one of the individual items is "proof" that Oswald is a murderer. Cumulatively, the various items show a pattern that inferences can be drawn from. You're a liar. You're a lying liar who(Blatant and REAL logical fallacies snipped)Wrong.
Arguing to argue. Eristic argumentation. More knots to untangle, more tar babies to fight, and on and on. You deliberately lie about what DVP wrote about Bugliosi's "53 reasons," and you lie about what Bugliosi's points are about the 53 reasons. You
The truth to you is like sunlight to a vampire.
Keep lying Ben. It's all you have left.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:26:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:22:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:And Chuckles proves me right.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 9:28:59?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:I predict that you won't quote a single one.
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, >>>> and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder. >>>>
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) >>>> to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was >>>> unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part >>>> of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical >>>> review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic. >>>>
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS >>>> A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to >>>> any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item >>>> #41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing >>>> his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; >>>> January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think >>>> that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he >>>> cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try >>>> to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that >>>> what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran >>>> from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER >>>> POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
You're trotting out two logical fallacies here.
Chuckles remained silent.1.) Straw man argument. You are deliberately misstating DVP'sAs I QUOTED HIM DIRECTLY - you're simply lying.
position regarding Bugliosi's list.
In fact, you link
And QUOTE - don't forget to add that in your haste to lie about what I
posted.
And *STILL* refused to quote me.to DVP's statement that, "Virtually all of Bugliosi's argumentsYou haven't quoted me "misstating" what I QUOTED him saying. Indeed,
(when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated
individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows
the basic facts of the JFK murder case," and then you continue to
misstate what he's writing. Shame on you
you took *YOUR* quote directly from *MY* post.
And refused to quote anyplace where I misstated anything.
Shame on you for your blatant lie.
Chuckles couldn't defend himself here...There is no where in DVP's writings where he states reading aSorry stupid, but this *IS* what Bugliosi claimed, and it *IS* a part
newspaper is evidence of Oswald as a murderer.
of the list that Von Penis refused to refute.
Indeed, he was quite explicit in stating that he *DID* believe this,
because he blocked out the two items he felt didn't belong on this
list.
So you're simply lying, aren't you?
And ran again... such amusing cowardice!There is no where in his writings where he claims any of the other
things you list individually prove Oswald is a murderer.
Sorry moron, but this is the list Bugliosi came up with to prove
Oswald guilty of murder.
You RAN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE when I posted all 53 of them, and had
nothing at all to say... now you're trying to whine when I merely
point out the FACT that Von Penis ran.
Amusingly, a FACT that you still can't publicly acknowledge.
Chuckles got spanked.It's the totality of the items, not each individual item. He makes
this clear,
As did I. You took YOUR quote directly from this post.
Dead silence. Chuckles has been caught lying, and he can't defendand then you waste thousands of words misstating what he
wrote. You're an ass.
This is indeed what he claimed. It is indeed, WHAT I QUOTED HIM
SAYING.
Then I addressed EXACTLY WHAT I QUOTED HIM SAYING.
You've been a complete failure at quoting any "misstatement" on my
part. A COMPLETE FAILURE!!
Why is that, Chuckles?
If you're telling the truth, WHY CAN'T YOU QUOTE ME???
himself.
The answer is clearly "No."2.) The other logical fallacy you're employing is called a fallacy
of division, which is the opposite of a fallacy of composition, one
of your favorites.
Can you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's the logical
fallacy of division?
The answer is clearly "No."Can you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's a fallacy of
composition? That should be easy to do if, as YOU claim, it's my
"favorite."
It's so easy to predict what cowards will do... >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_divisionWatch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer either challenge.
Dead silence.
The example given in the definition I linked to is:
1.) The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream. >>>2.) Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary.
3.) Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream.
Provably an example that you can't show I committed.
Spanked again...Carried over to the JFK assassination, this fallacy you are
attributing to DVP or Bugliosi might play out something like this:
1.) JFK was murdered by shots from the TSBD, where a newspaper
reporting the motorcade route could be found.
Literally, a statement I have *NEVER* made. So you've already failed
even when you just get started.
Spanked again...2.) Lee Harvey Oswald often read the newspaper at the TSBD.
Tut tut tut... STUPID!!! He must have EVERY SINGLE DAY read a
newspaper, in order for the one day he didn't to mean anything.
He cannot have "often" read, he must *ALWAYS* have read.
If he only "often" read, then the days he didn't mean nothing...
Chuckles couldn't defend himself.And indeed, the earliest evidence is that he read a newspaper that
day.
It's **YOU** that is claiming that this is evidence of murder. What a
KOOK you are!
Spanked again... Chuckles could only cry...Indeed, *NOT* reading a newspaper would not be evidence of murder if
you filmed him with a gun in his hand, smoking, with the victim lying
dead in front of him, and 97 witnesses in a circle surrounding the
murder scene.
And didn't.3.) Therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK.
This indeed is your claim. It's Von Penis' claim, it's Bugliosi's
claim, it's Huckster's claim, it's Chickenshit's claim, it's Steven's
claim.
But it's not *MY* claim. I'm quite clearly arguing AGAINST such a
wacky claim.
Nor can you cannot show a *SINGLE* STATEMENT (out of the above
invented statements) was made by me. You're merely creating things
out of whole cloth.
You can't quote me.
YOU CAN'T QUOTE ME!
Clearly, Chuckles prefers this to telling the truth.You're merely molesting Von Penis...
Spanked again...Literally NO ONE is claiming any items listed by Bugs prove Oswald
is a murderer, INDIVIDUALLY. It's the TOTALITY.
Sorry stupid. 0 + 0 still equals 0.
As I demonstrated above, you can't add the lack of reading a newspaper
to a KNOWN GUILTY MURDERER, and have it mean anything.
Chuckles refused to do so...You know this, but you keep arguing the opposite.You were silent throughtout the 53 claims of Bugliosi.
*NOW* you want to speak up.
Sorry... you lost that right.
Why not go back to it:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/r1N7PwTsUl4/m/gGddMPxIDgAJ
And answer it there.
Then you'll have more crediblity.
(Blatant and REAL logical fallacies snipped)
Wrong.Right.
(Logical fallacies snipped.)
Notice that Chuckles proved my predictions correct, he couldn't give a SINGLE quote that supported his lies.
NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY QUOTE!
You lose again, Chuckles.
Your lies exposed for all to see.
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:35:19 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
lie about whether you have milk in the fridge or what color the rug in your dining room is. You lie about the little things. You lie about the big things. You lie for pleasure. You lie for sport. You lie about your claim that Bugliosi feels each itemYou lose again, Chuckles.
Your lies exposed for all to see.Keep lying little fella. The truth to you is like sunlight to a vampire.
Literally NO ONE claims any of the "53 reasons" proves anything individually. It's cumulative. The weight in totality allows non-kooks to draw inferences from the various items.
It's one thing for you to disagree with this, which is your right, but it's another thing to lie about the points people are trying to make, but of course you are an inveterate liar, so it's just another day in your life filled with lies. You probably
Snip away now, Mr. Shorty-Pants McSnippy. Lie some more, and lie about lying some more. You like lies, and like the sound of your own lies. Lies comfort you and you enjoy your role as King of the Liars.
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was
unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:35:19?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:26:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:22:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:And Chuckles proves me right.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 9:28:59?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:I predict that you won't quote a single one.
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, >>>>>> and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is >>>>>> evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder. >>>>>>
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder. >>>>>>
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) >>>>>> to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was >>>>>> unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to >>>>>> show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part >>>>>> of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical >>>>>> review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic. >>>>>>
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS >>>>>> A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to >>>>>> any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can >>>>>> think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item >>>>>> #41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing >>>>>> his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; >>>>>> January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think >>>>>> that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he >>>>>> cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to >>>>>> think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try >>>>>> to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that >>>>>> what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was >>>>>> better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran >>>>>> from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER >>>>>> POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
You're trotting out two logical fallacies here.
Chuckles remained silent.1.) Straw man argument. You are deliberately misstating DVP'sAs I QUOTED HIM DIRECTLY - you're simply lying.
position regarding Bugliosi's list.
In fact, you link
And QUOTE - don't forget to add that in your haste to lie about what I >>>> posted.
And *STILL* refused to quote me.to DVP's statement that, "Virtually all of Bugliosi's argumentsYou haven't quoted me "misstating" what I QUOTED him saying. Indeed,
(when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated
individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows
the basic facts of the JFK murder case," and then you continue to
misstate what he's writing. Shame on you
you took *YOUR* quote directly from *MY* post.
And refused to quote anyplace where I misstated anything.
Shame on you for your blatant lie.
Chuckles couldn't defend himself here...There is no where in DVP's writings where he states reading aSorry stupid, but this *IS* what Bugliosi claimed, and it *IS* a part
newspaper is evidence of Oswald as a murderer.
of the list that Von Penis refused to refute.
Indeed, he was quite explicit in stating that he *DID* believe this,
because he blocked out the two items he felt didn't belong on this
list.
So you're simply lying, aren't you?
And ran again... such amusing cowardice!There is no where in his writings where he claims any of the other
things you list individually prove Oswald is a murderer.
Sorry moron, but this is the list Bugliosi came up with to prove
Oswald guilty of murder.
You RAN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE when I posted all 53 of them, and had
nothing at all to say... now you're trying to whine when I merely
point out the FACT that Von Penis ran.
Amusingly, a FACT that you still can't publicly acknowledge.
Chuckles got spanked.It's the totality of the items, not each individual item. He makes
this clear,
As did I. You took YOUR quote directly from this post.
Dead silence. Chuckles has been caught lying, and he can't defendand then you waste thousands of words misstating what he
wrote. You're an ass.
This is indeed what he claimed. It is indeed, WHAT I QUOTED HIM
SAYING.
Then I addressed EXACTLY WHAT I QUOTED HIM SAYING.
You've been a complete failure at quoting any "misstatement" on my
part. A COMPLETE FAILURE!!
Why is that, Chuckles?
If you're telling the truth, WHY CAN'T YOU QUOTE ME???
himself.
The answer is clearly "No."2.) The other logical fallacy you're employing is called a fallacy
of division, which is the opposite of a fallacy of composition, one
of your favorites.
Can you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's the logical
fallacy of division?
The answer is clearly "No."Can you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's a fallacy of
composition? That should be easy to do if, as YOU claim, it's my
"favorite."
It's so easy to predict what cowards will do... >>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_divisionWatch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer either challenge.
Dead silence.
The example given in the definition I linked to is:
1.) The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream. >>>>>2.) Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary.
3.) Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream.
Provably an example that you can't show I committed.
Spanked again...Carried over to the JFK assassination, this fallacy you are
attributing to DVP or Bugliosi might play out something like this:
1.) JFK was murdered by shots from the TSBD, where a newspaper
reporting the motorcade route could be found.
Literally, a statement I have *NEVER* made. So you've already failed
even when you just get started.
Spanked again...2.) Lee Harvey Oswald often read the newspaper at the TSBD.
Tut tut tut... STUPID!!! He must have EVERY SINGLE DAY read a
newspaper, in order for the one day he didn't to mean anything.
He cannot have "often" read, he must *ALWAYS* have read.
If he only "often" read, then the days he didn't mean nothing...
Chuckles couldn't defend himself.And indeed, the earliest evidence is that he read a newspaper that
day.
It's **YOU** that is claiming that this is evidence of murder. What a
KOOK you are!
Spanked again... Chuckles could only cry...Indeed, *NOT* reading a newspaper would not be evidence of murder if
you filmed him with a gun in his hand, smoking, with the victim lying
dead in front of him, and 97 witnesses in a circle surrounding the
murder scene.
And didn't.3.) Therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK.
This indeed is your claim. It's Von Penis' claim, it's Bugliosi's
claim, it's Huckster's claim, it's Chickenshit's claim, it's Steven's
claim.
But it's not *MY* claim. I'm quite clearly arguing AGAINST such a
wacky claim.
Nor can you cannot show a *SINGLE* STATEMENT (out of the above
invented statements) was made by me. You're merely creating things
out of whole cloth.
You can't quote me.
YOU CAN'T QUOTE ME!
Clearly, Chuckles prefers this to telling the truth.You're merely molesting Von Penis...
Spanked again...Literally NO ONE is claiming any items listed by Bugs prove Oswald
is a murderer, INDIVIDUALLY. It's the TOTALITY.
Sorry stupid. 0 + 0 still equals 0.
As I demonstrated above, you can't add the lack of reading a newspaper >>>> to a KNOWN GUILTY MURDERER, and have it mean anything.
Chuckles refused to do so...You know this, but you keep arguing the opposite.You were silent throughtout the 53 claims of Bugliosi.
*NOW* you want to speak up.
Sorry... you lost that right.
Why not go back to it:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/r1N7PwTsUl4/m/gGddMPxIDgAJ
And answer it there.
Then you'll have more crediblity.
Right.(Blatant and REAL logical fallacies snipped)
Wrong.
(Logical fallacies snipped.)
Notice that Chuckles proved my predictions correct, he couldn't give a
SINGLE quote that supported his lies.
NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY QUOTE!
You lose again, Chuckles.
Your lies exposed for all to see.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 18:13:02 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 11:35:19?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:Logical fallacy deleted.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:26:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 9:22:17?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:And Chuckles proves me right.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:37:17 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 9:28:59?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:I predict that you won't quote a single one.
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of >>>>>> points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is >>>>>> evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder. >>>>>>
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder. >>>>>>
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call) >>>>>> to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was >>>>>> unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to >>>>>> show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part >>>>>> of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical >>>>>> review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the >>>>>> folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic. >>>>>>
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS >>>>>> A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to >>>>>> any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder >>>>>> case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can >>>>>> think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item >>>>>> #41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP;
January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a >>>>>> newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think >>>>>> that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he
cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to >>>>>> think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He >>>>>> simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that >>>>>> what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was >>>>>> better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran >>>>>> from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER >>>>>> POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
You're trotting out two logical fallacies here.
Chuckles remained silent.1.) Straw man argument. You are deliberately misstating DVP'sAs I QUOTED HIM DIRECTLY - you're simply lying.
position regarding Bugliosi's list.
In fact, you link
And QUOTE - don't forget to add that in your haste to lie about what I >>>> posted.
And *STILL* refused to quote me.to DVP's statement that, "Virtually all of Bugliosi's argumentsYou haven't quoted me "misstating" what I QUOTED him saying. Indeed, >>>> you took *YOUR* quote directly from *MY* post.
(when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated
individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows >>>>> the basic facts of the JFK murder case," and then you continue to >>>>> misstate what he's writing. Shame on you
And refused to quote anyplace where I misstated anything.
Shame on you for your blatant lie.
Chuckles couldn't defend himself here...There is no where in DVP's writings where he states reading aSorry stupid, but this *IS* what Bugliosi claimed, and it *IS* a part >>>> of the list that Von Penis refused to refute.
newspaper is evidence of Oswald as a murderer.
Indeed, he was quite explicit in stating that he *DID* believe this, >>>> because he blocked out the two items he felt didn't belong on this
list.
So you're simply lying, aren't you?
And ran again... such amusing cowardice!There is no where in his writings where he claims any of the other >>>>> things you list individually prove Oswald is a murderer.
Sorry moron, but this is the list Bugliosi came up with to prove
Oswald guilty of murder.
You RAN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE when I posted all 53 of them, and had >>>> nothing at all to say... now you're trying to whine when I merely
point out the FACT that Von Penis ran.
Amusingly, a FACT that you still can't publicly acknowledge.
Chuckles got spanked.It's the totality of the items, not each individual item. He makes >>>>> this clear,
As did I. You took YOUR quote directly from this post.
Dead silence. Chuckles has been caught lying, and he can't defendand then you waste thousands of words misstating what he
wrote. You're an ass.
This is indeed what he claimed. It is indeed, WHAT I QUOTED HIM
SAYING.
Then I addressed EXACTLY WHAT I QUOTED HIM SAYING.
You've been a complete failure at quoting any "misstatement" on my
part. A COMPLETE FAILURE!!
Why is that, Chuckles?
If you're telling the truth, WHY CAN'T YOU QUOTE ME???
himself.
The answer is clearly "No."2.) The other logical fallacy you're employing is called a fallacy >>>>> of division, which is the opposite of a fallacy of composition, one >>>>> of your favorites.
Can you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's the logical >>>> fallacy of division?
The answer is clearly "No."Can you QUOTE any statement of mine, and show that it's a fallacy of >>>> composition? That should be easy to do if, as YOU claim, it's my
"favorite."
It's so easy to predict what cowards will do... >>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_divisionWatch folks, as Chuckles refuses to answer either challenge.
Dead silence.
The example given in the definition I linked to is:
1.) The second grade in Jefferson Elementary eats a lot of ice cream. >>>>>2.) Carlos is a second-grader in Jefferson Elementary.
3.) Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream.
Provably an example that you can't show I committed.
Spanked again...Carried over to the JFK assassination, this fallacy you are
attributing to DVP or Bugliosi might play out something like this: >>>>>
1.) JFK was murdered by shots from the TSBD, where a newspaper
reporting the motorcade route could be found.
Literally, a statement I have *NEVER* made. So you've already failed >>>> even when you just get started.
Spanked again...2.) Lee Harvey Oswald often read the newspaper at the TSBD.
Tut tut tut... STUPID!!! He must have EVERY SINGLE DAY read a
newspaper, in order for the one day he didn't to mean anything.
He cannot have "often" read, he must *ALWAYS* have read.
If he only "often" read, then the days he didn't mean nothing...
Chuckles couldn't defend himself.And indeed, the earliest evidence is that he read a newspaper that
day.
It's **YOU** that is claiming that this is evidence of murder. What a >>>> KOOK you are!
Spanked again... Chuckles could only cry...Indeed, *NOT* reading a newspaper would not be evidence of murder if >>>> you filmed him with a gun in his hand, smoking, with the victim lying >>>> dead in front of him, and 97 witnesses in a circle surrounding the
murder scene.
And didn't.3.) Therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK.
This indeed is your claim. It's Von Penis' claim, it's Bugliosi's
claim, it's Huckster's claim, it's Chickenshit's claim, it's Steven's >>>> claim.
But it's not *MY* claim. I'm quite clearly arguing AGAINST such a
wacky claim.
Nor can you cannot show a *SINGLE* STATEMENT (out of the above
invented statements) was made by me. You're merely creating things
out of whole cloth.
You can't quote me.
YOU CAN'T QUOTE ME!
Clearly, Chuckles prefers this to telling the truth.You're merely molesting Von Penis...
Spanked again...Literally NO ONE is claiming any items listed by Bugs prove Oswald >>>>> is a murderer, INDIVIDUALLY. It's the TOTALITY.
Sorry stupid. 0 + 0 still equals 0.
As I demonstrated above, you can't add the lack of reading a newspaper >>>> to a KNOWN GUILTY MURDERER, and have it mean anything.
Chuckles refused to do so...You know this, but you keep arguing the opposite.You were silent throughtout the 53 claims of Bugliosi.
*NOW* you want to speak up.
Sorry... you lost that right.
Why not go back to it:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/r1N7PwTsUl4/m/gGddMPxIDgAJ
And answer it there.
Then you'll have more crediblity.
Right.(Blatant and REAL logical fallacies snipped)
Wrong.
(Logical fallacies snipped.)
Notice that Chuckles proved my predictions correct, he couldn't give a
SINGLE quote that supported his lies.
NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY QUOTE!
You lose again, Chuckles.
Your lies exposed for all to see.
You ran from EVERYTHING!
CTs have been playing this same game for decades. They ALWAYS look at each piece of
evidence in isolation. They NEVER look at the whole nor try to offer a scenario that will fit with
ALL the evidence. Only the Warren Commission scenario does that.
For any given piece of evidence, there are multiple possible explanations. One of the possible
explanations, and in most cases the most likely explanation, is that Oswald was the assassin.
That explanation fits all the evidence and is the only one ever offered. Let's take one such
piece of evidence as an example, the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched the shirt
Oswald was wearing at the time of the rifle. I see three possible explanations:
1. The fibers were deposited there when the recoil of the rifle pressed the butt plate into
Oswald's shoulder as he fired the shots that killed JFK.
2. The fibers were deposited there one another day when Oswald fired the rifle while wearing
the same or identical shirt.
3. The fibers were deposited there when somebody else fired the rifle while wearing a shirt
identical to the one Oswald was wearing that day.
I should point out that these criticisms of CTs only apply to those who believe Oswald was
framed.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 03:36:53 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's what Corbutt ran from:
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete,
and David simply refused to engage in debate.
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is
evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was
unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical
review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing
his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a
newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that
what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran
from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER
POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
CTs have been playing this same game for decades. They ALWAYS look at each piece ofLies & logical fallacies aren't arguments.
evidence in isolation. They NEVER look at the whole nor try to offer a scenario that will fit with
ALL the evidence. Only the Warren Commission scenario does that.
For any given piece of evidence, there are multiple possible explanations. One of the possible
explanations, and in most cases the most likely explanation, is that Oswald was the assassin.
That explanation fits all the evidence and is the only one ever offered. Let's take one such
piece of evidence as an example, the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle that matched the shirt
Oswald was wearing at the time of the rifle. I see three possible explanations:
1. The fibers were deposited there when the recoil of the rifle pressed the butt plate intoWhen you don't start with the facts, your conclusions will provably be faulty.
Oswald's shoulder as he fired the shots that killed JFK.
2. The fibers were deposited there one another day when Oswald fired the rifle while wearing
the same or identical shirt.
3. The fibers were deposited there when somebody else fired the rifle while wearing a shirt
identical to the one Oswald was wearing that day.
Here's an excellent summation of these facts:
This is a pretty close parallel to the fibers on the rifle butt story.
That the fibers were dangling on the butt plate and got wrapped around
the butt plate when Day dusted the rifle for prints is theoretically possible, but it's highly unlikely, and fails to pass a smell test. I
have read dozens of forensics texts and articles on this stuff, and
fibers are sometimes found on oily weapons, but wrapped around the
butt plate? On top of fingerprint powder? This is ludicrous on its
face. You will find no reference to anything like this in the
forensics literature, and it's doubtful even that the fiber evidence
would have been introduced at trial, should Oswald have not been
executed while in police custody.
I mean, the prosecution says the fibers found on the rifle matched the
shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested.
Under cross, the defense exposes that the fibers were found on top of fingerprint powder.
Then the defense has its turn. Fritz is forced to concede that Oswald
told him he had worn a different shirt to work on the day of the
shooting than the one he was wearing when arrested. He is then forced
to concede that Oswald told him this before he knew that fibers from
the other shirt had been found on the rifle.
The defense then calls a fiber expert who testifies to the
improbability of fibers being found wrapped around a butt plate...on
top of fingerprint powder.
During his final summation, the defense attorney lays out that the
fibers were probably planted by the DPD.
Reasonable doubt? Maybe. When taken together with a print being
"found" on the rifle--a week after the FBI said there was no such
print? Definitely.
I should point out that these criticisms of CTs only apply to those who believe Oswald wasIn other words, only those critics that actually LOOK at the
framed.
evidence...
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 4:40:35?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 07:28:55 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
The refutation series on Bugliosi's 53 bits of "evidence" is complete, >>>and David simply refused to engage in debate.Notice folks, that both Corbutt and Chickenshit have refused to defend
He tried a couple of times, and ignored the overwhelming mass of
points I raised to show that Bugliosi was a kook.
Only a kook would argue that reading or not reading a newspaper is >>>evidence for murder.
Only a kook would argue that changing clothes is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would argue that getting a coke is evidence of murder.
Only a kook would use outright lies (such as the "missing" roll call)
to make his case.
The fact that the Internet's biggest defender of Vincent Bugliosi was >>>unable to defend him on such a MAJOR issue - Bugliosi's attempt to
show that Oswald was guilty... shows a consciousness on David's part
of just how weak his case is. He *KNOWS* it can't withstand critical >>>review from someone who knows the evidence.
David has been schooled enough times by me that he knows well the
folly of trying to argue the evidence against a knowledgeable critic.
Here's what David responded:
"Virtually all of Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS
A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to
any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder
case. Among the items on Mr. Bugliosi's list of "53 Things", I can
think of only two items that really don't belong there (IMO) -- Item
#41 (about the paraffin test) and item #23 (concerning Oswald changing >>>his trousers). More of my thoughts about 'The VB 53' [below]." -- DVP; >>>January 25, 2017
He seriously believes that reading a newspaper, or not reading a >>>newspaper - is evidence of murder... WHAT A KOOK!!
David ACTUALLY ASSERTS AND BELIEVES that ordinary people would think
that this list of Bugliosi's - actually makes "perfect sense" - yet he >>>cannot HIMSELF defend Bugliosi. How is the average person going to
think this makes "perfect sense" when even David doesn't???
And despite me pointing this out - David ABSOLUTELY **REFUSES** to try
to defend himself when I point out these wacky claims of his. He
simply runs away.
Corbutt too... who was the cause for repeating this series -
originally tried to refute my refutations, but quickly found out that >>>what I was posting was credible, authoritative, supported by
citations, and simply impossible to answer... so he decided it was
better to run away.
And he did.
*This* series caused him to run.
And that fact tells the tale.
Let's not forget that both Chickenshit and Huckster Sienzant also ran >>>from addressing these refutations... THERE ISN'T AN HONEST BELIEVER >>>POSTING IN THIS FORUM.
And this additional fact *also* tells the tale.
One of absolute cowardice...
Von Penis, and what a kook he is.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 116:01:21 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,176 |