What?s the MINIMUM number of people required for your CT to work?

[John Iacoletti]

You can do it yourself... just strip the Bug53 down to those that wouldn't be admitted as evidence in your opinion. Just don't run your broken-record piecemeal schtick again.

You haven't been paying attention.  What anyone thinks "would be admitted as evidence" is irrelevant.  Why didn't Bugliosi strip down his own list instead of padding it with nonsense?  The answer is obvious:  there'd be very little left.

Again, show us where I ever claimed that my conclusions are 'more correct' than anyone else's

Great - we have your opinion with no reasons given for believing that your opinion is true or likely to be true, or has any merit whatsoever.  Ok, enjoy your baseless opinion.

Then why describe the coke/dr pepper thing as if was needed as evidence of murder?

Because Bugliosi claims that it is evidence of murder, and you keep crowing about considering everything (which includes the Dr Pepper rhetoric) in combination as if that somehow makes it all relevant.

You are playing with words so as to avoid having to show where I ever said any separate Bug53 item could prove anything at all in and of itself.

Bugliosi did.  By defending his list, you're defending his inclusion.  If you don't defend what he calls "evidence" then just say so.

'So why do you think Oswald probably did it?'
>>> Yawn. Rinse & repeat. You must be behind on your quota.

Yeah, that's what I thought.  You have your belief and have never provided any justification for it.  At all.  Ever.

[John Iacoletti]

You just pretend you do, whilst at the same time following the die hard LN guide line of constantly asking to be proven wrong.....

Bill is "probably right" until you can come up with a different "probable" answer.  Why?  Just 'cause.

 

[Martin Weidmann]

Not even a probable shooter yet, Martin?
What... too soon?

Running home to LN central?

[Bill Chapman]

Why didn't Bugliosi strip down his own list instead of padding it with nonsense?  The answer is obvious:  there'd be very little left.

Bug used what he himself calls 'overkill' for a reason:

Many other readers, he [Bugliosi] writes, will say to themselves, Why does he keep piling one argument upon another to prove his point? He's already made it 12 ways from Sunday, so why go on?. To those readers I say that the Warren Commission also made its point, and well, over 40 years ago, yet today the overwhelming majority of Americans do not accept its conclusion. ... Hence, the overkill in this book is historically necessary. -- Bryan Burrough

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Burrough-t.html

[Martin Weidmann]

Bug used what he himself calls 'overkill' for a reason:

?Many other readers,? he [Bugliosi] writes, ?will say to themselves, ?Why does he keep piling one argument upon another to prove his point? He?s already made it 12 ways from Sunday, so why go on?? To those readers I say that the Warren Commission also made its point, and well, over 40 years ago, yet today the overwhelming majority of Americans do not accept its conclusion. ... Hence, the overkill in this book is historically necessary.?-- Bryan Burrough

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Burrough-t.html

So, what is the reasoning here?

The WC failed to convince the majority of the people so Bugs piles on more weak, selfserving, speculative BS arguments and he hopes that will convince people after all...... really?

What a load of crap! All Bugs overkill really proves is that the basic case is so weak that he feels he needs to throw everything and the kitchen sink on top of it in a desperate attempt to somehow make it covincing....

[John Iacoletti]

Bug used what he himself calls 'overkill' for a reason:

?Many other readers,? he [Bugliosi] writes, ?will say to themselves, ?Why does he keep piling one argument upon another to prove his point? He?s already made it 12 ways from Sunday, so why go on?? To those readers I say that the Warren Commission also made its point, and well, over 40 years ago, yet today the overwhelming majority of Americans do not accept its conclusion. ... Hence, the overkill in this book is historically necessary.?-- Bryan Burrough

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Burrough-t.html

And by "overkill" he means piling on a bunch of rhetorical crap that has nothing to do with the assassination and calling it "evidence".

[Bill Chapman]

So, what is the reasoning here?

The WC failed to convince the majority of the people so Bugs piles on more weak, selfserving, speculative BS arguments and he hopes that will convince people after all...... really?

What a load of crap! All Bugs overkill really proves is that the basic case is so weak that he feels he needs to throw everything and the kitchen sink on top of it in a desperate attempt to somehow make it covincing....

Show us one poll that asked if Oswald was the killer. The polls ask if Oswald had help or not.