"2. A second powerful reason to believe in the validity of the
single-bullet theory without any reference to the Zapruder film is the
lack of any physical evidence supporting a second gunman. As has
already been established, *three* shell casings ejected from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were found on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building beneath the southeasternmost window. If, indeed, a
fourth shot had been fired that day (and hence, there was a second
assassin), how is it possible that not one person, out of an estimated
crowd of four to five hundred spectators in Dealey Plaza, saw a second gunman? (e.g., a shell casing, a fourth bullet, a second rifle, etc.)?
Are we to believe, then, that the second gunman simply vanished into
thin air? Or is that nonsense? Again the lack of any physical evidence
of a second gunman, all by itself, is extremely powerful evidence
supporting the single-bullet theory." Pg 462-463
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my >responses...)
"2. A second powerful reason to believe in the validity of the
single-bullet theory without any reference to the Zapruder film is the
lack of any physical evidence supporting a second gunman. As has
already been established, *three* shell casings ejected from Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were found on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building beneath the southeasternmost window. If, indeed, a
fourth shot had been fired that day (and hence, there was a second
assassin), how is it possible that not one person, out of an estimated
crowd of four to five hundred spectators in Dealey Plaza, saw a second
gunman? (e.g., a shell casing, a fourth bullet, a second rifle, etc.)?
Are we to believe, then, that the second gunman simply vanished into
thin air? Or is that nonsense? Again the lack of any physical evidence
of a second gunman, all by itself, is extremely powerful evidence
supporting the single-bullet theory." Pg 462-463
Bugliosi doesn't address the known problems with CE543, (the lack of a >'chamber-mark'), nor the fact that the *earliest* evidence shows only
*two* shells, not three.
Bugliosi argues that if a second gunman was not seen by anyone, then
he doesn't exist. A rather silly argument, as he himself must
certainly know.
I'm not surprised that he doesn't want to deal with the Z-film, since
it shows the strongest evidence that the SBT never happened.
Indeed, the sum total of *THIS* argument is simply one long logical >fallacy... the fallacy of personal incredulity. He can't find it
possible that assassins could fire - yet remain hidden.
Bugliosi's final sentence is simply the logical fallacy of the absence
of evidence. But he's careful to claim only an absence of PHYSICAL
evidence, because he's well aware of how many eyewitnesses (including
those on the steps of the TSBD!) pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
Logical fallacies are hardly "powerful reasons" except to those who
have a belief they don't want to disturb.
Bugliosi has failed with #2.
(Cue Chickenshit to whimper, and Corbutt to respond to Chickenshit,
despite his claim not to read my posts... watch for it!)
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my responses...)
"2. A second powerful reason to believe in the validity of the single-bullet theory without any reference to the Zapruder film is the lack of any physical evidence supporting a second gunman. As has
already been established, *three* shell casings ejected from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building beneath the southeasternmost window. If, indeed, a fourth shot had been fired that day (and hence, there was a second assassin), how is it possible that not one person, out of an estimated crowd of four to five hundred spectators in Dealey Plaza, saw a second gunman? (e.g., a shell casing, a fourth bullet, a second rifle, etc.)?
Are we to believe, then, that the second gunman simply vanished into
thin air? Or is that nonsense? Again the lack of any physical evidence
of a second gunman, all by itself, is extremely powerful evidence supporting the single-bullet theory." Pg 462-463
Bugliosi doesn't address the known problems with CE543, (the lack of a 'chamber-mark'),
nor the fact that the *earliest* evidence shows only
*two* shells, not three.
Bugliosi argues that if a second gunman was not seen by anyone, then
he doesn't exist.
A rather silly argument, as he himself must
certainly know.
I'm not surprised that he doesn't want to deal with the Z-film, since
it shows the strongest evidence that the SBT never happened.
Indeed, the sum total of *THIS* argument is simply one long logical fallacy... the fallacy of personal incredulity. He can't find it
possible that assassins could fire - yet remain hidden.
Bugliosi's final sentence is simply the logical fallacy of the absence
of evidence. But he's careful to claim only an absence of PHYSICAL
evidence, because he's well aware of how many eyewitnesses (including
those on the steps of the TSBD!) pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
Logical fallacies are hardly "powerful reasons" except to those who
have a belief they don't want to disturb.
Bugliosi has failed with #2.
(Cue Chickenshit to whimper, and Corbutt to respond to Chickenshit,
despite his claim not to read my posts... watch for it!)
On Wed, 09 Aug 2023 07:19:49 -0700, Ben Holmes <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my >responses...)
"2. A second powerful reason to believe in the validity of the
single-bullet theory without any reference to the Zapruder film is the
lack of any physical evidence supporting a second gunman. As has
already been established, *three* shell casings ejected from Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were found on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building beneath the southeasternmost window. If, indeed, a
fourth shot had been fired that day (and hence, there was a second
assassin), how is it possible that not one person, out of an estimated
crowd of four to five hundred spectators in Dealey Plaza, saw a second
gunman? (e.g., a shell casing, a fourth bullet, a second rifle, etc.)?
Are we to believe, then, that the second gunman simply vanished into
thin air? Or is that nonsense? Again the lack of any physical evidence
of a second gunman, all by itself, is extremely powerful evidence
supporting the single-bullet theory." Pg 462-463
Bugliosi doesn't address the known problems with CE543, (the lack of a >'chamber-mark'), nor the fact that the *earliest* evidence shows only >*two* shells, not three.
Bugliosi argues that if a second gunman was not seen by anyone, then
he doesn't exist. A rather silly argument, as he himself must
certainly know.
I'm not surprised that he doesn't want to deal with the Z-film, since
it shows the strongest evidence that the SBT never happened.
Indeed, the sum total of *THIS* argument is simply one long logical >fallacy... the fallacy of personal incredulity. He can't find it
possible that assassins could fire - yet remain hidden.
Bugliosi's final sentence is simply the logical fallacy of the absence
of evidence. But he's careful to claim only an absence of PHYSICAL >evidence, because he's well aware of how many eyewitnesses (including >those on the steps of the TSBD!) pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
Logical fallacies are hardly "powerful reasons" except to those who
have a belief they don't want to disturb.
Bugliosi has failed with #2.
(Cue Chickenshit to whimper, and Corbutt to respond to Chickenshit, >despite his claim not to read my posts... watch for it!)Looks like I was wrong. Chickenshit refused to try to defend
Bugliosi, even though he read it,
and Corbutt couldn't respond if
no-one else did. (But avidly read this post anyway...)
The cowardice in this forum is ASTRONOMICAL!!!
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 10:19:52?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"2. A second powerful reason to believe in the validity of the
single-bullet theory without any reference to the Zapruder film is the
lack of any physical evidence supporting a second gunman. As has
already been established, *three* shell casings ejected from Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were found on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building beneath the southeasternmost window. If, indeed, a
fourth shot had been fired that day (and hence, there was a second
assassin), how is it possible that not one person, out of an estimated
crowd of four to five hundred spectators in Dealey Plaza, saw a second
gunman? (e.g., a shell casing, a fourth bullet, a second rifle, etc.)?
Are we to believe, then, that the second gunman simply vanished into
thin air? Or is that nonsense? Again the lack of any physical evidence
of a second gunman, all by itself, is extremely powerful evidence
supporting the single-bullet theory." Pg 462-463
Bugliosi doesn't address the known problems with CE543, (the lack of a
'chamber-mark'),
You refuse to show the significance of whatever it is you think should exist.
nor the fact that the *earliest* evidence shows only
*two* shells, not three.
Support that.
Bugliosi argues that if a second gunman was not seen by anyone, then
he doesn't exist.
It certainly speaks against the existence of a second shooter.
And if you check inside the parenthesis you`ll see he also mentions the lack of physical evidence.
A rather silly argument, as he himself must
certainly know.
I'm not surprised that he doesn't want to deal with the Z-film, since
it shows the strongest evidence that the SBT never happened.
An easily exposed lie...
https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
Indeed, the sum total of *THIS* argument is simply one long logical
fallacy... the fallacy of personal incredulity. He can't find it
possible that assassins could fire - yet remain hidden.
Bugliosi's final sentence is simply the logical fallacy of the absence
of evidence. But he's careful to claim only an absence of PHYSICAL
evidence, because he's well aware of how many eyewitnesses (including
those on the steps of the TSBD!) pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
What did they witness on the knoll with their eyes?
Logical fallacies are hardly "powerful reasons" except to those who
have a belief they don't want to disturb.
Bugliosi has failed with #2.
(Cue Chickenshit to whimper, and Corbutt to respond to Chickenshit,
despite his claim not to read my posts... watch for it!)
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 16:40:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 7:34:25?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2023 07:19:49 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my >>>responses...)Looks like I was wrong. Chickenshit refused to try to defend
"2. A second powerful reason to believe in the validity of the
single-bullet theory without any reference to the Zapruder film is the >>>> lack of any physical evidence supporting a second gunman. As has
already been established, *three* shell casings ejected from Oswald's >>>> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were found on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building beneath the southeasternmost window. If, indeed, a >>>> fourth shot had been fired that day (and hence, there was a second
assassin), how is it possible that not one person, out of an estimated >>>> crowd of four to five hundred spectators in Dealey Plaza, saw a second >>>> gunman? (e.g., a shell casing, a fourth bullet, a second rifle, etc.)? >>>> Are we to believe, then, that the second gunman simply vanished into >>>> thin air? Or is that nonsense? Again the lack of any physical evidence >>>> of a second gunman, all by itself, is extremely powerful evidence
supporting the single-bullet theory." Pg 462-463
Bugliosi doesn't address the known problems with CE543, (the lack of a >>>'chamber-mark'), nor the fact that the *earliest* evidence shows only >>>*two* shells, not three.
Bugliosi argues that if a second gunman was not seen by anyone, then >>>he doesn't exist. A rather silly argument, as he himself must >>>certainly know.
I'm not surprised that he doesn't want to deal with the Z-film, since >>>it shows the strongest evidence that the SBT never happened.
Indeed, the sum total of *THIS* argument is simply one long logical >>>fallacy... the fallacy of personal incredulity. He can't find it >>>possible that assassins could fire - yet remain hidden.
Bugliosi's final sentence is simply the logical fallacy of the absence >>>of evidence. But he's careful to claim only an absence of PHYSICAL >>>evidence, because he's well aware of how many eyewitnesses (including >>>those on the steps of the TSBD!) pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
Logical fallacies are hardly "powerful reasons" except to those who >>>have a belief they don't want to disturb.
Bugliosi has failed with #2.
(Cue Chickenshit to whimper, and Corbutt to respond to Chickenshit, >>>despite his claim not to read my posts... watch for it!)
Bugliosi, even though he read it,
I just now read it, and don`t see anything that needs defending, you refuse to make valid arguments.Empty unsupported and uncited claims are lies.
According to *YOU*.
But since I am bored and you crave my attention, I`ll play...A revealing statement...
It's morons like this that play games with the death of our President.
and Corbutt couldn't respond if
no-one else did. (But avidly read this post anyway...)
The cowardice in this forum is ASTRONOMICAL!!!
On Wed, 9 Aug 2023 16:52:11 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 10:19:52?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Bugliosi provides his arguments for the Single Bullet Theory: (With my
responses...)
"2. A second powerful reason to believe in the validity of the
single-bullet theory without any reference to the Zapruder film is the >>> lack of any physical evidence supporting a second gunman. As has
already been established, *three* shell casings ejected from Oswald's >>> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were found on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building beneath the southeasternmost window. If, indeed, a >>> fourth shot had been fired that day (and hence, there was a second
assassin), how is it possible that not one person, out of an estimated >>> crowd of four to five hundred spectators in Dealey Plaza, saw a second >>> gunman? (e.g., a shell casing, a fourth bullet, a second rifle, etc.)? >>> Are we to believe, then, that the second gunman simply vanished into
thin air? Or is that nonsense? Again the lack of any physical evidence >>> of a second gunman, all by itself, is extremely powerful evidence
supporting the single-bullet theory." Pg 462-463
Bugliosi doesn't address the known problems with CE543, (the lack of a
'chamber-mark'),
You refuse to show the significance of whatever it is you think should exist.Not a refutation.
Indeed, you failed to address it completely.
nor the fact that the *earliest* evidence shows only
*two* shells, not three.
Support that.No.
If you're willing to lie, there's nothing I can do to stop you.
And, as there's literally *NO* evidence you would accept, it would be
simply a waste of time. It's already been done in this forum.
Bugliosi argues that if a second gunman was not seen by anyone, then
he doesn't exist.
It certainly speaks against the existence of a second shooter.It also speaks against **MOST** murderers...
And if you check inside the parenthesis you`ll see he also mentions the lack of physical evidence.Dealt with below.
Clearly, you don't bother to read what you respond
to.
A rather silly argument, as he himself must
certainly know.
I'm not surprised that he doesn't want to deal with the Z-film, since
it shows the strongest evidence that the SBT never happened.
An easily exposed lie...You're lying again, Chickenshit.
https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
Notice folks, that *MY* explanation for why Bugs wanted to disregard
the Z-film is credible, but Chickenshit has **NO** explanation.
Indeed, the sum total of *THIS* argument is simply one long logical
fallacy... the fallacy of personal incredulity. He can't find it
possible that assassins could fire - yet remain hidden.
Bugliosi's final sentence is simply the logical fallacy of the absence
of evidence. But he's careful to claim only an absence of PHYSICAL
evidence, because he's well aware of how many eyewitnesses (including
those on the steps of the TSBD!) pointed to the Grassy Knoll.
What did they witness on the knoll with their eyes?Tut tut tut ... stop trying to change the topic,
and address the
logical fallacy I just pointed out.
Logical fallacies are hardly "powerful reasons" except to those who
have a belief they don't want to disturb.
Bugliosi has failed with #2.
Logical fallacy deleted.
(Cue Chickenshit to whimper, and Corbutt to respond to Chickenshit,
despite his claim not to read my posts... watch for it!)
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 5:50:42?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
Selective quoting removed.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 109:28:23 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,713 |