Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #20 Refuted.

(20) Oswald had the cab drive past his residence, dropping him off down the road. 

This is sheer speculation that isn't based on the evidence... chances are quite good that Oswald never even took a taxi. Indeed, this particular evidence would tend to show that it wasn't Oswald who took the taxi.

Once again we see the presumption of guilt, then an attempt to force the evidence into supporting this 'guilt'.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-20-Refuted

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #19 Refuted.

(19) Oswald's not speaking to the cab driver about the assassination is striking.

No, it's NOT striking. This is simply another silly statement by Bugliosi... showing yet again his tendency to draw guilty conclusions from virtually any fact.

How many people did YOU not talk to today about Trump winning the Presidency?

The wickedly silly idea that you have to instantly start talking to total strangers about a crime is something only a believer can come up with.

Nor is it particularly credible that Oswald even TOOK this taxi... how credible would you accept the taxi driver's assertion that his passenger was wearing TWO jackets?

It was a necessity to get Oswald off the bus and into a taxi when it became clear that the bus would have given Oswald an alibi for the Tippit murder. But, as we've seen, it's by no means certain that Oswald was on the bus, and certainly far less evidence that he ever took a taxi that day.

[Be sure to note how much difficulty Patrick Collins is having in dealing with my refutations... Where's the 'A' team for believers???]

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-19-Refuted

Dishonest Journalism

Found online...
 

Judith Levine & Erica R. Meiners Wrote:Twenty years of research has established that people with convictions for sex offenses have low rates of recidivism and that the expanding realms of post-release punishment do not prevent sexual violence.

This is such a blatant and incredibly stupid statement that one would be hard pressed to find a more obvious lie. While I'm sure that if one looked long enough, somewhere there would be a "study" that supports this - it's simply not true.

One can find a justification for anything you believe if you search online long enough...

Journalism & honesty are not words that can often be used in the same sentence...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Dishonest-Journalism

Shaw Trial - Garrison Misused Office???

From the Washington Post, Nov 17, 2016:

Joyce Carol Oates Wrote:The most notorious of the conspiracy theorists was the publicity-seeking New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison, who misused his office to prosecute a fellow New Orleans citizen as a conspirator on virtually no evidence (the man was acquitted).

Other than the opening remarks to the jury, Garrison almost never appeared in this case against Clay Shaw.

But the point that refutes this lie is the fact that the CIA and the Justice Department went to great efforts to derail the prosecution of Clay Shaw. Until believers can explain that fact in a non-conspiratorial and credible manner, the facts tend to support the prosecution.

Believers just HATE Jim Garrison - who went far in releasing a great deal of evidence tending to show a conspiracy. This can be seen in Joyce Carol Oates assertion...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Shaw-Trial-Garrison-Misused-Office

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #18 Refuted.

(18) Oswald left the Marsalis bus when it got caught in traffic.

Presuming that Oswald was on a bus, it's not exactly evidence that he murdered someone if he gets off the bus. It's merely historical FACT that everyone who was on that bus got off of it that same day, and likely within an hour or so - does this make them all suspects???

Watch as believers, such as Patrick Collins - ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly admit just how silly and nonsensical this particular bit of "evidence" is...

Nor will Patrick accuse Mrs. Bledsoe of the crime... it's a provable fact that she also got off the bus... indeed, so did Cecil McWatters... the bus driver... as did Milton Jones, the teenager later identified by McWatters as the "grinning" man he'd originally thought was Oswald.

Is it cowardice by Patrick Collins, or dishonesty? I'll let the readers decide...

It's merely speculation that someone got off the bus -due to traffic- ... nor would it be particularly strange for someone to do so if they weren't willing to wait.

Nor is it particularly well established that he was even on the bus.

One question that is rarely raised is why would Oswald get on the Marsalis bus in the first place? The nearest this bus would take Oswald to his rooming house on North Beckley is seven blocks away. Oswald regularly used public transport, as he didn't drive and had no car. Public transportation has schedules. Anyone regularly using the bus generally knows these schedules. Knowing the schedules helps to not be fired from work. Oswald must have known the schedule of the Beckley bus. It left the St Paul transfer point at the same time as the Marsalis/Munger bus that Cecil McWatters was driving. That time was 12:36pm. McWatters claimed that he was probably ahead of the Beckley bus because he couldn’t see it in front of him. If Oswald was heading back to his rooming house why would he get a bus that didn’t take him there? Especially if the one that did take him all the way home was probably right behind it?

And, if we accept the EARLIEST account, that of McWatter's Affidavit – then Oswald being on the bus is an alibi for the Tippit murder... because he let Oswald off the bus AFTER the Tippit murder.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-18-Refuted

Evidence of Conspiracy...

Bogman Wrote:... It was a domestic political conspiracy.

The evidence supporting this opinion are more tenuous and circumstantial. And Oswald’s actions that day do, IMO, point to knowledge of guilt of some kind. But following are a few of the dangling, unresolved threads that point to conspiracy:o The CIA’s ongoing obfuscation over the Oswald Mexico City tapes and photos

• The CIA’s felonious obstruction of the HSCA through George Joannides and continuing withholding of evidence on his relationship with the DRE
  
• Syliva Odio’s testimony
  
• CIA contract agent William Gaudet’s claim he saw Oswald with Guy Bannister in NO
  
• Antonio Veciana’s claim he saw David Atlee Phillips with Oswald in September in Dallas
  
• The endless multitude of anomalies in the criminal evidence, including the backward snap of the president’s head in the Zapruder film, the Parkland doctors contrary views of the head injury, the failed nitrate test, the Harper fragment, the burning of the first autopsy notes, the FBI destruction of the Oswald note, the many revised witness testimonies by the FBI, the botched autopsy, the Siebert/O’Neill testimony, the credible eyewitness testimony of a shot from the front, Ruby’s connections to organized crime, the suspicious deaths of key witnesses including Johnny Roselli, Santos Trafficante and George DM, the CIA communications by George DM before and after knowing Oswald, the moving of the bullet wound to the neck in drawings by the govt to make a shot from a sixth floor more plausible, the currently expanding view that JFK was not another in a line of Cold War presidents and had intentions to end the Cold War and make peace with Castro, etc., etc., etc.
  

It would be nice to finally get some candor from our government once and for all.

There's only two things wrong with the above statement... Silvia Odio's name is misspelled, and the "nitrate" test should have been "NAA" test.

Interestingly, I don't believe I've ever seen a reasonable and credible explanation for the famously incorrect Rydberg drawing... Dr. Humes surely knew better, and any Commission who used third-hand drawings in place of the actual photos and X-rays is incompetent, at best... and quite possibly criminally negligent.

Let the silence from the believers commence...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Evidence-of-Conspiracy

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #17 Refuted.

(17) Oswald walked past his normal bus stop and walked seven blocks to board a different line.

Sheer speculation... The evidence that Oswald got on a bus isn't very credible. There are three witnesses to Oswald getting on a bus... let's examine them:

Mr. McWatters, bus driver - according to the Dallas Police (CE 2003, pg 293) McWatters identified Oswald as the one on the bus... but according to his testimony, he thought a teenager named Milton Jones was the one he saw. He also testified that he picked up "Oswald" at Elm & Houston – although Bugliosi argues that Oswald walked past that bus stop. McWatters also gave Oswald an alibi in his earliest statement – his affidavit puts Oswald off the bus later than the Tippit murder.

Mary Bledsoe - former landlady for Oswald - testified that she'd seen Oswald on the bus, "looking like a maniac," his shirt undone, his "sleeve was out here," he was dirty, he "looked so bad in his face, and his face was so distorted." Mrs. Bledsoe clearly despised Oswald, and could hardly be considered a credible witness in her description. She also gives evidence that she was NOT on the bus at the time, since there's a critical anachronism found in her testimony:

Quote:Mr. BALL - Was there traffic? Was the traffic heavy?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oh, it was awful in the city, and then they had roped off that around where the President was killed, shot, and we were the first car that come around there, and then all of us were talking about the man, and we were looking up to see where he was shot and looking---and then they had one man and taking him already got him in jail, and we got----"Well, I am glad they found him." 
Mr. BALL - You were looking up at where?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - At where the boy was shot.
Mr. BALL - You mean the Texas Book Depository? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BALL - School Book Depository?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Uh-huh, because we were right four blocks from there, you see.

(Testimony can be found here.)

As Don Willis has pointed out: No one just entering Dealey, on a bus, around 12:40pm, would have been "looking up" at the depository, as a scene of shooting. The building had been mentioned only on the police radio, at that point, not on public TV or radio. And the area had not yet been "roped off", as Mrs. Bledsoe said that it was when they passed: "By approximately 1:00 the crowd is kept back from the front of the [depository], though not yet behind rope barricades" (photo caption, page 519, "Pictures of the Pain").

This anachronism shows that Mrs. Bledsoe was hardly a credible witness at all.


Milton Jones, a 17 year old - who stated that a person who might have been Oswald got on the bus about 6 blocks before Houston Street (Did Oswald walk six blocks before getting on the bus?). This is in direct conflict with McWatter's testimony. The only reason that Milton Jones gave for his belief that he'd seen Oswald was a conversation he had with McWatters the following Monday - where McWatters said that the man they'd both saw might have been Oswald.

So all we have here is second-hand corroboration for McWatter's statements, not an independent identification of Oswald.

It's interesting to note that both McWatters and Jones stated that this person had a blue jacket on. Jones said: "Light blue", McWatters said "faded blue". And yet, a blue jacket alleged to belong to Oswald was found at the Texas School Book Depository a few weeks later.

Mary Bledsoe, the least credible witness, asserted that he had no jacket on - and the Warren Commission accepted this - despite having two credible, corroborating witnesses that described someone who could not have been Oswald. She was also reading off notes during her Warren commission testimony - prepared by Secret Service Agent, Forrest Sorrels. When Warren commission counsel, Joseph Ball, asked her why she had notes, she responded: "Well, because I forgot what I had to say."

Note that Milton Jones accepted thought that the man he'd seen was Oswald because McWatters thought it was, yet McWatters testified that it was Milton Jones he'd seen!

The evidence for Oswald getting on the Marsalis bus has been all but refuted.

And certainly, Bugliosi's claim that Oswald walked past his normal bus stop rests on unbelievably shaky grounds.

Hardly the sort of "evidence" one would normally look for in determining the guilt of someone.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-17-Refuted

JFK's Head Wound Location

John McAdams Wrote:

Bob Prudhomme Wrote:From the Warren Commission testimony of Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service:

Quote:Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy’s condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

Blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car?

 
"Rear," of course, is extremely vague.

Here is Hill in a 1990s documentary putting the wound "above the ear."

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinthill.htm

You folks need a wound with blown out occipital bone. Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you.

BTW, do you think the Zapruder film is faked?

Do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked?

John McAdams is, as usual, being entirely deceptive... and this can be shown by one question...

Presuming that the large head wound were in the back of the head - WHAT MEDICAL TERMINOLOGY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DESCRIBE IT?

Now, an honest man, anyone familiar with the technical jargon, would instantly use "occipital," or "occipital region," or even "occipital-parietal" - since all three terms describe a wound to the BACK of the head. So when McAdams asserted that "Just saying "rear" or "occipital-parietal" or "occipital region" doesn't get it for you." - he was quite provably lying.

McAdams - and I also predict, Patrick Collins - will not offer any answer to the question of how to describe a wound to the back of the head - because it would prove that McAdams is, as usual, simply lying. And it's quite difficult indeed to get believers to admit that another believer is lying.

The wound was described repeatedly as being in the back of the head. That's where it was.

And neither John McAdams, Patrick Collins, Henry Sienzant, or any other Warren Commission believer can HONESTLY argue otherwise.

P.S. If Patrick answers this - I predict in advance that he'll refuse to answer the above posted hypothetical question.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-JFK-s-Head-Wound-Location

Paraffin Tests & McAdams' Lying...

John McAdams Wrote:

James Howells Wrote:Oswald was tested and did not fire a weapon that day!

Factoid alert!

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

The paraffin test was unreliable, and produced both false positives and false negatives. Its only real use was to intimidate naive suspects into confessing.

Liar alert!

The test that showed that Oswald could have fired a weapon that day was the Paraffin test... but the test that gave evidence that Oswald had NOT fired a rifle was the NAA test.

The paraffin test gave evidence that Oswald HAD fired a weapon... although, as McAdams also knows, working around paper products is one of the reasons that the paraffin test will give false positives... the test that showed NEGATIVE for any rifle usage was the NAA test... and McAdams knows this.  

The Neutron Activation Analysis test is extremely reliable and accurate. And McAdams knows this...

But just like all other believers, he will instantly take any reference to this topic as referring to the Paraffin test, and absolutely REFUSE to address or even acknowledge the accuracy & reliability of the NAA test.

Of course, this fact demonstrates just who is honest, and who is lying...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Paraffin-Tests-McAdams-Lying

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #16 Refuted.

(16) After the assassination, only Oswald missed a roll call at the TSBD. 

This is an outright lie on Bugliosi's part... and it shouldn't have taken him 20 plus years to correct this.

Jack Charles Cason - President of School Book Depositary - left the building at 12:10 p.m. and went home. (VOL:22 640)

Gloria Jean Holt - clerk at TSBD - did not return after shooting. (VOL:19.526) (VOL:22.652)

Sharon Simmons Nelson, Secretary, (VOL:19.256;VOL: 22-P.665) did not return.

Bonnie Richey, Secretary, (VOL22.671) did not return.

Carolyn Arnold (VOL:22.635) did not return.

Mrs. Donald Baker, Clerk, did not return (VOL:22.635)

Judy Marie Johnson (VOL22.256) did not return.

Mrs. Stella Mae Jacob (VOL:22.665) did not return.

Charles Givens did not come back.

Virginia H. Burnum - McGraw-Hill employee does not return (VOL:22.636)

Vida Lee Whatley, Clerk, does not return.(VOL:22.680)

Warren Caster (VOL;22.641;VOL 26.738) eating lunch in Denton.

Spauldin “Pud” Jones (VOL:22.658) eating lunch at Blue Front with Herbert Junker (another McMillan employee) (22:659)

Mrs. Helen Palmer, clerk, (VOL:22.666) not present was at Love Field.

Franklin Kaiser - was absent from work on 11/22.(VOL:6.342), (VOL:23.751)

Vicki Davis, employee, was absent.

Dottie Lovelady, employee, was absent.

Mrs. Rudell Parsons, employee, was absent.

Joe Bergen, Scott Foresman, absent.

Maury Brown, McGraw-Hill, absent.

John Langston, absent.

Bugliosi does admit that Charles Givens was absent, but strangely doesn't note that an APB went out to locate Givens. It's long been a factoid for Warren Commission believers that there was a 'roll call,' and that only Oswald was absent from it - but this is simply untrue, and should have been put to rest long ago.

That Bugliosi has to bring forth such obvious factoids to 'prove' Oswald's guilt is just another illustration of how weak his case is.

And the fact that Patrick will absolutely refuse to publicly state that Bugliosi lied here is yet another proof of Patrick's dishonesty... eh Patrick?

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-16-Refuted

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #15 Refuted.

(15) It makes no sense that Oswald the "political animal" had no interest in the President's death. 

More speculation with no foundation at all. While I took the time to go and stand at the curb while President Reagan's hearse drove by, I had zero interest in going even a few blocks to see President Obama. Does this mean that if an assassin were to make an attempt on the President, that I'm a valid suspect?

Once again, Bugliosi takes it as a matter of faith that Oswald was the lone assassin, then twists anything and everything he 'knows' about Oswald to 'prove' his guilt.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-15-Refuted

Patrick Caught Lying...

Amusingly, Patrick still refuses to quote what Malcolm Kilfuff actually said...

He lied when he claimed that Kilduff said that Dr. Perry was "his source on the head wound."

Henry Sienzant also lied when he claimed that I'd asserted that Kilduff had viewed the body, and got his information that way... Patrick went along with that lie as well.

It would be quite easy to defend Patrick's statement - ALL HE HAS TO DO IS QUOTE KILDUFF SAYING WHAT HE ASSERTS HE SAID...

Yet all we have is silence ... and Patrick's repeated assertions that he's an "honest" man.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again without any fear of refutation - there's no such thing as an honest knowledgeable believer in the Warren Commission's theory.

Anyone who honesty accepts the Warren Commission is simply ignorant of the actual case evidence.

Patrick cannot refute this...

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Patrick-Caught-Lying

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #14 Refuted.

(14) Oswald's story of getting a Coke after hearing commotion of assassination is not sensible. 

Sheer speculation with NO REASON. We know for a FACT that several people saw Oswald with a coke. So this is a well established fact. Trying to assert that 'getting a coke' is somehow evidence against someone in a murder is just too silly for words. Quite similar to the 'not seen reading a newspaper' was...

Bugliosi's presumption of guilt, then his tendency to look at any and every event, and assert that it proves Oswald's guilt, is quite evident here.

Watch as believers refuse to defend Bugliosi's quite silly attempt to paint Oswald as guilty...

Where are you - Patrick???

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-14-Refuted

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #13 Refuted.

(13) During interrogation, Oswald put himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. 

This is a rather outrageous untruth that Bugliosi is making here. It's true that Oswald was possibly one of the last to leave the 6th floor, sometime around 12 noon, where he was working that day - but he was seen by others, such as Arnold, on the first or second floor after 12 noon.

That Bugliosi has to lie to make his case shows just how weak these '53 Reasons' are.

Take careful note of the fact that "Honest" Patrick won't dare to defend this lie, nor call it a lie on Bugliosi's part. So much for "honesty."

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-13-Refuted

Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #12 Refuted.

(12) Kennedy's assassin was at the now-infamous sixth-floor window.

Unless you can put Oswald there, this has nothing whatsoever to do with indicting Oswald. This is like saying "Jessica Simpson's assassin was in the yard." - that doesn't indict O.J. Simpson - and had the prosecution tried to make such an assertion, he'd have been laughed out of the court.

That Bugliosi can make such a statement shows his desperation... As I stated before, Bugliosi has a tendency to try to view ANYTHING as proof of Oswald's guilt.

And what's truly funny - is that I can't find a SINGLE believer honest enough to agree with the above refutation - despite the fact that they cannot argue with it. The simple truth is that if a believer is honest, he's ignorant of the evidence in this case.

If a believer knows the evidence, he can't be honest.

from Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-12-Refuted