Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Bugliosi: 53 Reasons It Was Lee Harvey Oswald [View all]OrwellwasRight
(5,210 posts)"Yes, your list in #128 is made up of non-credible evidence and false and misleading assumptions.
One and all. If those "facts" are the basis of your conclusions, then you've been led horribly astray."
This is most certainly an insult. Calling his evidence credible but mine not? On what basis? On that fact that he is a Vincent Bugliosi fan and I am not? Calling me "led horribly astray"? If that is not calling someone feeble minded, I don't know what is.
I listed several books that are well written and documented and have cogent evidence and reasonable conclusions. Neither you nor your buddy is interested in "discussing" them. you are only interested in repeating your opinions that any evidence that doesn't support your conclusions is wrong, or debunked, or non-credible. That's not "discussion," that's contradiciton. And I have no interest in it. I would prefer to agree to disagree and go post somewhere else a bit more hospitable.