Discussion:
Assumptions
Add Reply
BOZ
2018-05-10 01:04:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.

For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.

The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-10 19:29:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
False. The acoustical evidence proved that someone was shooting from the
grassy knoll.
Post by BOZ
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
No credible witness saw Oswald shooting from the sniper's nest in the
TSBD, but that doesn't stop YOU from claiming it as a fact. Mr. Hypocrite.
Post by BOZ
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
Why does a sniper have to leave behind his weapon? Where is that rule
written?
Post by BOZ
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
I rely on no one to say it was Frank Bender. I am pretty sure I am the
only person to ever say that.
mainframetech
2018-05-11 02:58:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that no stranger came into the TSBD because no
one remembers seeing anyone. (I believe there was one stranger that came
in) but a hundred could come in at the right time and leave the same way.
Most people in the building were at the windows looking for the motorcade,
and not paying attention to the doors. Particularly the loading dock door
at the rear.
Post by BOZ
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that there was no one firing on the GK, even
though there was the story told by Walter Rischel that Lee Bowers in his
RR tower saw men firing on the motorcade, and Gordon Arnold said he had a
bullet fly over his shoulder from the fence on the GK, before he got out
of there quickly.

On top of that, the LN zealot ASSUMES that because there was no rifle,
no shells that some one was NOT there firing on the motorcade, and so they
completely forget that some shooters recover their weapon and police their
brass, and some weapons don't eject their shells.

Ah those Assuming LNs!

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-12 14:28:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that no stranger came into the TSBD because no
one remembers seeing anyone. (I believe there was one stranger that came
in) but a hundred could come in at the right time and leave the same way.
Most people in the building were at the windows looking for the motorcade,
and not paying attention to the doors. Particularly the loading dock door
at the rear.
Post by BOZ
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that there was no one firing on the GK, even
though there was the story told by Walter Rischel that Lee Bowers in his
RR tower saw men firing on the motorcade,
There was no story told by Lee Bowers that he saw men firing on the
motorcade. He didn't say that under oath and he didn't say that when
interviewed by Mark Lane.
Post by mainframetech
and Gordon Arnold said he had a
bullet fly over his shoulder from the fence on the GK, before he got out
of there quickly.
You have one criteria for deciding whether to believe a witness or not. If
that witness tells a story you want to believe, you assume that witness is
credible. It doesn't matter to you if there is any corroboration for what
the witness says or whether if fits the body of evidence. As long as it's
something you want to believe, you regard that as "proof".
Post by mainframetech
On top of that, the LN zealot ASSUMES that because there was no rifle,
no shells that some one was NOT there firing on the motorcade, and so they
completely forget that some shooters recover their weapon and police their
brass, and some weapons don't eject their shells.
Ah those Assuming LNs!
LNs choose not to believe things for which there is no credible evidence.
We don't believe there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, or
grassy knoll shooters.
mainframetech
2018-05-13 00:02:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that no stranger came into the TSBD because no
one remembers seeing anyone. (I believe there was one stranger that came
in) but a hundred could come in at the right time and leave the same way.
Most people in the building were at the windows looking for the motorcade,
and not paying attention to the doors. Particularly the loading dock door
at the rear.
Post by BOZ
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that there was no one firing on the GK, even
though there was the story told by Walter Rischel that Lee Bowers in his
RR tower saw men firing on the motorcade,
There was no story told by Lee Bowers that he saw men firing on the
motorcade. He didn't say that under oath and he didn't say that when
interviewed by Mark Lane.
WRONG! What a record of errors you are making! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT!
Your talk of oath taking and interview by Mark Lane has nothing to do with
the situation. As you well know (but are pretending to not know), Walter
Rischel (who was mentioned above) told the story that he says was told to
him by Bowers, that Bowers saw men shooting at the motorcade at the fence
on the GK. All this was said above in the original statement, yet you
pretended to not se that. Who do you think you are kidding?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and Gordon Arnold said he had a
bullet fly over his shoulder from the fence on the GK, before he got out
of there quickly.
You have one criteria for deciding whether to believe a witness or not. If
that witness tells a story you want to believe, you assume that witness is
credible. It doesn't matter to you if there is any corroboration for what
the witness says or whether if fits the body of evidence. As long as it's
something you want to believe, you regard that as "proof".
WRONG yet again! It never stops, your constant errors! You have
guessed wrong again as to my thinking. I believe evidence and proof.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
On top of that, the LN zealot ASSUMES that because there was no rifle,
no shells that some one was NOT there firing on the motorcade, and so they
completely forget that some shooters recover their weapon and police their
brass, and some weapons don't eject their shells.
Ah those Assuming LNs!
LNs choose not to believe things for which there is no credible evidence.
We don't believe there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, or
grassy knoll shooters.
Amazing! And yet you believe the WCR!

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-14 03:11:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that no stranger came into the TSBD because no
one remembers seeing anyone. (I believe there was one stranger that came
in) but a hundred could come in at the right time and leave the same way.
Most people in the building were at the windows looking for the motorcade,
and not paying attention to the doors. Particularly the loading dock door
at the rear.
Post by BOZ
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that there was no one firing on the GK, even
though there was the story told by Walter Rischel that Lee Bowers in his
RR tower saw men firing on the motorcade,
There was no story told by Lee Bowers that he saw men firing on the
motorcade. He didn't say that under oath and he didn't say that when
interviewed by Mark Lane.
WRONG! What a record of errors you are making! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT!
Your talk of oath taking and interview by Mark Lane has nothing to do with
the situation. As you well know (but are pretending to not know), Walter
Rischel (who was mentioned above) told the story that he says was told to
him by Bowers, that Bowers saw men shooting at the motorcade at the fence
on the GK. All this was said above in the original statement, yet you
pretended to not se that. Who do you think you are kidding?
A statement made under oath under penalty of perjury carries far greater
weight than one made with no such ramification. Rishel could make up any
story he wanted to with no threat of legal ramifications. Freedom of
speech means freedom to lie.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and Gordon Arnold said he had a
bullet fly over his shoulder from the fence on the GK, before he got out
of there quickly.
You have one criteria for deciding whether to believe a witness or not. If
that witness tells a story you want to believe, you assume that witness is
credible. It doesn't matter to you if there is any corroboration for what
the witness says or whether if fits the body of evidence. As long as it's
something you want to believe, you regard that as "proof".
WRONG yet again! It never stops, your constant errors! You have
guessed wrong again as to my thinking. I believe evidence and proof.
Yet almost never post any.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
On top of that, the LN zealot ASSUMES that because there was no rifle,
no shells that some one was NOT there firing on the motorcade, and so they
completely forget that some shooters recover their weapon and police their
brass, and some weapons don't eject their shells.
Ah those Assuming LNs!
LNs choose not to believe things for which there is no credible evidence.
We don't believe there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, or
grassy knoll shooters.
Amazing! And yet you believe the WCR!
Yes we do because there is lots of credible evidence to support that. The
fact that you can invent excuses to dismiss each and every piece of it
makes that evidence no less credible.
mainframetech
2018-05-15 01:49:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that no stranger came into the TSBD because no
one remembers seeing anyone. (I believe there was one stranger that came
in) but a hundred could come in at the right time and leave the same way.
Most people in the building were at the windows looking for the motorcade,
and not paying attention to the doors. Particularly the loading dock door
at the rear.
Post by BOZ
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that there was no one firing on the GK, even
though there was the story told by Walter Rischel that Lee Bowers in his
RR tower saw men firing on the motorcade,
There was no story told by Lee Bowers that he saw men firing on the
motorcade. He didn't say that under oath and he didn't say that when
interviewed by Mark Lane.
WRONG! What a record of errors you are making! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT!
Your talk of oath taking and interview by Mark Lane has nothing to do with
the situation. As you well know (but are pretending to not know), Walter
Rischel (who was mentioned above) told the story that he says was told to
him by Bowers, that Bowers saw men shooting at the motorcade at the fence
on the GK. All this was said above in the original statement, yet you
pretended to not se that. Who do you think you are kidding?
A statement made under oath under penalty of perjury carries far greater
weight than one made with no such ramification. Rishel could make up any
story he wanted to with no threat of legal ramifications. Freedom of
speech means freedom to lie.
Oh crap! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT! Rischel talked to a reporter on the
street, and he wasn't in court ant the moment so no one asked him to take
an oath. He made a statement about what Bowers told him and that's
evidence. It needs some verification, and some of that was supplied by a
fellow named Good.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and Gordon Arnold said he had a
bullet fly over his shoulder from the fence on the GK, before he got out
of there quickly.
You have one criteria for deciding whether to believe a witness or not. If
that witness tells a story you want to believe, you assume that witness is
credible. It doesn't matter to you if there is any corroboration for what
the witness says or whether if fits the body of evidence. As long as it's
something you want to believe, you regard that as "proof".
WRONG yet again! It never stops, your constant errors! You have
guessed wrong again as to my thinking. I believe evidence and proof.
Yet almost never post any.
WRONG! I post cites and links to evidence whenever I show something
for the first time, and any time I'm asked, or something I said is
challenged. You should look to yourself as to responding with links.
You often fail to do it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
On top of that, the LN zealot ASSUMES that because there was no rifle,
no shells that some one was NOT there firing on the motorcade, and so they
completely forget that some shooters recover their weapon and police their
brass, and some weapons don't eject their shells.
Ah those Assuming LNs!
LNs choose not to believe things for which there is no credible evidence.
We don't believe there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, or
grassy knoll shooters.
Amazing! And yet you believe the WCR!
Yes we do because there is lots of credible evidence to support that. The
fact that you can invent excuses to dismiss each and every piece of it
makes that evidence no less credible.
Right next to that "credible evidence" there are also THEORIES
mentioned to back up some wild ideas, like the SBT. That means the WCR
has guesses in it, and no one has made them into real evidence. They
remain as guesses to this day after over 50 years of the case.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-16 02:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that no stranger came into the TSBD because no
one remembers seeing anyone. (I believe there was one stranger that came
in) but a hundred could come in at the right time and leave the same way.
Most people in the building were at the windows looking for the motorcade,
and not paying attention to the doors. Particularly the loading dock door
at the rear.
Post by BOZ
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that there was no one firing on the GK, even
though there was the story told by Walter Rischel that Lee Bowers in his
RR tower saw men firing on the motorcade,
There was no story told by Lee Bowers that he saw men firing on the
motorcade. He didn't say that under oath and he didn't say that when
interviewed by Mark Lane.
WRONG! What a record of errors you are making! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT!
Your talk of oath taking and interview by Mark Lane has nothing to do with
the situation. As you well know (but are pretending to not know), Walter
Rischel (who was mentioned above) told the story that he says was told to
him by Bowers, that Bowers saw men shooting at the motorcade at the fence
on the GK. All this was said above in the original statement, yet you
pretended to not se that. Who do you think you are kidding?
A statement made under oath under penalty of perjury carries far greater
weight than one made with no such ramification. Rishel could make up any
story he wanted to with no threat of legal ramifications. Freedom of
speech means freedom to lie.
Oh crap! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT! Rischel talked to a reporter on the
street, and he wasn't in court ant the moment so no one asked him to take
an oath.
That was a good thing because that freed him up to lie his ass off.
Post by mainframetech
He made a statement about what Bowers told him and that's
evidence.
Hardly.
Post by mainframetech
It needs some verification, and some of that was supplied by a
fellow named Good.
Another proven liar telling another completely unsupported tale.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and Gordon Arnold said he had a
bullet fly over his shoulder from the fence on the GK, before he got out
of there quickly.
You have one criteria for deciding whether to believe a witness or not. If
that witness tells a story you want to believe, you assume that witness is
credible. It doesn't matter to you if there is any corroboration for what
the witness says or whether if fits the body of evidence. As long as it's
something you want to believe, you regard that as "proof".
WRONG yet again! It never stops, your constant errors! You have
guessed wrong again as to my thinking. I believe evidence and proof.
Yet almost never post any.
WRONG! I post cites and links to evidence whenever I show something
for the first time, and any time I'm asked, or something I said is
challenged. You should look to yourself as to responding with links.
You often fail to do it.
You don't even understand what evidence is so how could you post links to
it. Some schmuck spouting nonsense on a website is not evidence of
anything nor is someone telling an unsupported tale is also not evidence.
If I told you a herd of pink unicorns ran across my lawn, would you
consider that to be evidence that a herd of pink unicorns ran across my
lawn.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
On top of that, the LN zealot ASSUMES that because there was no rifle,
no shells that some one was NOT there firing on the motorcade, and so they
completely forget that some shooters recover their weapon and police their
brass, and some weapons don't eject their shells.
Ah those Assuming LNs!
LNs choose not to believe things for which there is no credible evidence.
We don't believe there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, or
grassy knoll shooters.
Amazing! And yet you believe the WCR!
Yes we do because there is lots of credible evidence to support that. The
fact that you can invent excuses to dismiss each and every piece of it
makes that evidence no less credible.
Right next to that "credible evidence" there are also THEORIES
mentioned to back up some wild ideas, like the SBT. That means the WCR
has guesses in it, and no one has made them into real evidence. They
remain as guesses to this day after over 50 years of the case.
The SBT remains the only "guess" that actually fits the available
evidence. You can't come up with another one and neither has anybody else.
Sure you can invent vague scenarios of multiple shooters apparently firing
aimlessly around Dealey Plaza but the devil is in the details and you are
never able to offer any of those because if you did, you know it would be
a house of cards. Instead you choose to remain as vague as possible about
your imaginary shooters.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-17 19:59:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that no stranger came into the TSBD because no
one remembers seeing anyone. (I believe there was one stranger that came
in) but a hundred could come in at the right time and leave the same way.
Most people in the building were at the windows looking for the motorcade,
and not paying attention to the doors. Particularly the loading dock door
at the rear.
Post by BOZ
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that there was no one firing on the GK, even
though there was the story told by Walter Rischel that Lee Bowers in his
RR tower saw men firing on the motorcade,
There was no story told by Lee Bowers that he saw men firing on the
motorcade. He didn't say that under oath and he didn't say that when
interviewed by Mark Lane.
WRONG! What a record of errors you are making! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT!
Your talk of oath taking and interview by Mark Lane has nothing to do with
the situation. As you well know (but are pretending to not know), Walter
Rischel (who was mentioned above) told the story that he says was told to
him by Bowers, that Bowers saw men shooting at the motorcade at the fence
on the GK. All this was said above in the original statement, yet you
pretended to not se that. Who do you think you are kidding?
A statement made under oath under penalty of perjury carries far greater
weight than one made with no such ramification. Rishel could make up any
story he wanted to with no threat of legal ramifications. Freedom of
speech means freedom to lie.
Oh crap! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT! Rischel talked to a reporter on the
street, and he wasn't in court ant the moment so no one asked him to take
an oath.
That was a good thing because that freed him up to lie his ass off.
Post by mainframetech
He made a statement about what Bowers told him and that's
evidence.
Hardly.
Post by mainframetech
It needs some verification, and some of that was supplied by a
fellow named Good.
Another proven liar telling another completely unsupported tale.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and Gordon Arnold said he had a
bullet fly over his shoulder from the fence on the GK, before he got out
of there quickly.
You have one criteria for deciding whether to believe a witness or not. If
that witness tells a story you want to believe, you assume that witness is
credible. It doesn't matter to you if there is any corroboration for what
the witness says or whether if fits the body of evidence. As long as it's
something you want to believe, you regard that as "proof".
WRONG yet again! It never stops, your constant errors! You have
guessed wrong again as to my thinking. I believe evidence and proof.
Yet almost never post any.
WRONG! I post cites and links to evidence whenever I show something
for the first time, and any time I'm asked, or something I said is
challenged. You should look to yourself as to responding with links.
You often fail to do it.
You don't even understand what evidence is so how could you post links to
it. Some schmuck spouting nonsense on a website is not evidence of
anything nor is someone telling an unsupported tale is also not evidence.
If I told you a herd of pink unicorns ran across my lawn, would you
consider that to be evidence that a herd of pink unicorns ran across my
lawn.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
On top of that, the LN zealot ASSUMES that because there was no rifle,
no shells that some one was NOT there firing on the motorcade, and so they
completely forget that some shooters recover their weapon and police their
brass, and some weapons don't eject their shells.
Ah those Assuming LNs!
LNs choose not to believe things for which there is no credible evidence.
We don't believe there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, or
grassy knoll shooters.
Amazing! And yet you believe the WCR!
Yes we do because there is lots of credible evidence to support that. The
fact that you can invent excuses to dismiss each and every piece of it
makes that evidence no less credible.
Right next to that "credible evidence" there are also THEORIES
mentioned to back up some wild ideas, like the SBT. That means the WCR
has guesses in it, and no one has made them into real evidence. They
remain as guesses to this day after over 50 years of the case.
The SBT remains the only "guess" that actually fits the available
Which SBT du jour? WHose SBT du jour? Which frame do YOU like the best?
Post by bigdog
evidence. You can't come up with another one and neither has anybody else.
Free Frank Warner did, almost weekly.
Post by bigdog
Sure you can invent vague scenarios of multiple shooters apparently firing
aimlessly around Dealey Plaza but the devil is in the details and you are
never able to offer any of those because if you did, you know it would be
a house of cards. Instead you choose to remain as vague as possible about
your imaginary shooters.
I give the exact location and the exact name.
mainframetech
2018-05-17 20:05:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that no stranger came into the TSBD because no
one remembers seeing anyone. (I believe there was one stranger that came
in) but a hundred could come in at the right time and leave the same way.
Most people in the building were at the windows looking for the motorcade,
and not paying attention to the doors. Particularly the loading dock door
at the rear.
Post by BOZ
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that there was no one firing on the GK, even
though there was the story told by Walter Rischel that Lee Bowers in his
RR tower saw men firing on the motorcade,
There was no story told by Lee Bowers that he saw men firing on the
motorcade. He didn't say that under oath and he didn't say that when
interviewed by Mark Lane.
WRONG! What a record of errors you are making! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT!
Your talk of oath taking and interview by Mark Lane has nothing to do with
the situation. As you well know (but are pretending to not know), Walter
Rischel (who was mentioned above) told the story that he says was told to
him by Bowers, that Bowers saw men shooting at the motorcade at the fence
on the GK. All this was said above in the original statement, yet you
pretended to not se that. Who do you think you are kidding?
A statement made under oath under penalty of perjury carries far greater
weight than one made with no such ramification. Rishel could make up any
story he wanted to with no threat of legal ramifications. Freedom of
speech means freedom to lie.
Oh crap! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT! Rischel talked to a reporter on the
street, and he wasn't in court at the moment so no one asked him to take
an oath.
That was a good thing because that freed him up to lie his ass off.
And you have backup for that OPINION? You have any reasons for him
to lie? Looks like you have nothing whatsoever of a useful nature to say.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He made a statement about what Bowers told him and that's
evidence.
Hardly.
You don't get to decide, but you can have an OPINION.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It needs some verification, and some of that was supplied by a
fellow named Good.
Another proven liar telling another completely unsupported tale.
Oh? I want the proof you speak of please. Cites and links. And not
one of McAdams' hit pieces, which are not evidence, but more opinion.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and Gordon Arnold said he had a
bullet fly over his shoulder from the fence on the GK, before he got out
of there quickly.
You have one criteria for deciding whether to believe a witness or not. If
that witness tells a story you want to believe, you assume that witness is
credible. It doesn't matter to you if there is any corroboration for what
the witness says or whether if fits the body of evidence. As long as it's
something you want to believe, you regard that as "proof".
WRONG yet again! It never stops, your constant errors! You have
guessed wrong again as to my thinking. I believe evidence and proof.
Yet almost never post any.
WRONG! I post cites and links to evidence whenever I show something
for the first time, and any time I'm asked, or something I said is
challenged. You should look to yourself as to responding with links.
You often fail to do it.
You don't even understand what evidence is so how could you post links to
it. Some schmuck spouting nonsense on a website is not evidence of
anything nor is someone telling an unsupported tale is also not evidence.
If I told you a herd of pink unicorns ran across my lawn, would you
consider that to be evidence that a herd of pink unicorns ran across my
lawn.
The WCR uses THEORIES to try to backup their guesses about the
murder. You believe that for some odd reason. And it took a lot of
schmucks to write it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
On top of that, the LN zealot ASSUMES that because there was no rifle,
no shells that some one was NOT there firing on the motorcade, and so they
completely forget that some shooters recover their weapon and police their
brass, and some weapons don't eject their shells.
Ah those Assuming LNs!
LNs choose not to believe things for which there is no credible evidence.
We don't believe there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, or
grassy knoll shooters.
Amazing! And yet you believe the WCR!
Yes we do because there is lots of credible evidence to support that. The
fact that you can invent excuses to dismiss each and every piece of it
makes that evidence no less credible.
Right next to that "credible evidence" there are also THEORIES
mentioned to back up some wild ideas, like the SBT. That means the WCR
has guesses in it, and no one has made them into real evidence. They
remain as guesses to this day after over 50 years of the case.
The SBT remains the only "guess" that actually fits the available
evidence. You can't come up with another one and neither has anybody else.
Sure you can invent vague scenarios of multiple shooters apparently firing
aimlessly around Dealey Plaza but the devil is in the details and you are
never able to offer any of those because if you did, you know it would be
a house of cards. Instead you choose to remain as vague as possible about
your imaginary shooters.
Actually, that's false information that you're trying to dispense.
You've been shown the evidence that the SBT didn't happen, and yet you
continue to spread that false information. As to the "only guess" in the
WCR, I think you forgot the "lone nut" theory. Another silly story. So
you're WRONG again.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-18 20:44:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that no stranger came into the TSBD because no
one remembers seeing anyone. (I believe there was one stranger that came
in) but a hundred could come in at the right time and leave the same way.
Most people in the building were at the windows looking for the motorcade,
and not paying attention to the doors. Particularly the loading dock door
at the rear.
Post by BOZ
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that there was no one firing on the GK, even
though there was the story told by Walter Rischel that Lee Bowers in his
RR tower saw men firing on the motorcade,
There was no story told by Lee Bowers that he saw men firing on the
motorcade. He didn't say that under oath and he didn't say that when
interviewed by Mark Lane.
WRONG! What a record of errors you are making! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT!
Your talk of oath taking and interview by Mark Lane has nothing to do with
the situation. As you well know (but are pretending to not know), Walter
Rischel (who was mentioned above) told the story that he says was told to
him by Bowers, that Bowers saw men shooting at the motorcade at the fence
on the GK. All this was said above in the original statement, yet you
pretended to not se that. Who do you think you are kidding?
A statement made under oath under penalty of perjury carries far greater
weight than one made with no such ramification. Rishel could make up any
story he wanted to with no threat of legal ramifications. Freedom of
speech means freedom to lie.
Oh crap! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT! Rischel talked to a reporter on the
street, and he wasn't in court at the moment so no one asked him to take
an oath.
That was a good thing because that freed him up to lie his ass off.
And you have backup for that OPINION? You have any reasons for him
to lie? Looks like you have nothing whatsoever of a useful nature to say.
He contradicted what Bowers said for himself under oath and also repeated
in his interview with Mark Lane. Add to that the fact there isn't a shred
of corroborating evidence for Rishel's bogus story. What kind of moron
would believe such nonsense?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He made a statement about what Bowers told him and that's
evidence.
Hardly.
You don't get to decide, but you can have an OPINION.
You can be gullible.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It needs some verification, and some of that was supplied by a
fellow named Good.
Another proven liar telling another completely unsupported tale.
Oh? I want the proof you speak of please. Cites and links. And not
one of McAdams' hit pieces, which are not evidence, but more opinion.
Another clown telling another tale completely unsupported and contradicted
by everyone else involved. But you want to believe it so you do.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and Gordon Arnold said he had a
bullet fly over his shoulder from the fence on the GK, before he got out
of there quickly.
You have one criteria for deciding whether to believe a witness or not. If
that witness tells a story you want to believe, you assume that witness is
credible. It doesn't matter to you if there is any corroboration for what
the witness says or whether if fits the body of evidence. As long as it's
something you want to believe, you regard that as "proof".
WRONG yet again! It never stops, your constant errors! You have
guessed wrong again as to my thinking. I believe evidence and proof.
Yet almost never post any.
WRONG! I post cites and links to evidence whenever I show something
for the first time, and any time I'm asked, or something I said is
challenged. You should look to yourself as to responding with links.
You often fail to do it.
You don't even understand what evidence is so how could you post links to
it. Some schmuck spouting nonsense on a website is not evidence of
anything nor is someone telling an unsupported tale is also not evidence.
If I told you a herd of pink unicorns ran across my lawn, would you
consider that to be evidence that a herd of pink unicorns ran across my
lawn.
The WCR uses THEORIES to try to backup their guesses about the
murder. You believe that for some odd reason. And it took a lot of
schmucks to write it.
Why didn't you answer my question? Why did you choose to change the
subject instead?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
On top of that, the LN zealot ASSUMES that because there was no rifle,
no shells that some one was NOT there firing on the motorcade, and so they
completely forget that some shooters recover their weapon and police their
brass, and some weapons don't eject their shells.
Ah those Assuming LNs!
LNs choose not to believe things for which there is no credible evidence.
We don't believe there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, or
grassy knoll shooters.
Amazing! And yet you believe the WCR!
Yes we do because there is lots of credible evidence to support that. The
fact that you can invent excuses to dismiss each and every piece of it
makes that evidence no less credible.
Right next to that "credible evidence" there are also THEORIES
mentioned to back up some wild ideas, like the SBT. That means the WCR
has guesses in it, and no one has made them into real evidence. They
remain as guesses to this day after over 50 years of the case.
The SBT remains the only "guess" that actually fits the available
evidence. You can't come up with another one and neither has anybody else.
Sure you can invent vague scenarios of multiple shooters apparently firing
aimlessly around Dealey Plaza but the devil is in the details and you are
never able to offer any of those because if you did, you know it would be
a house of cards. Instead you choose to remain as vague as possible about
your imaginary shooters.
Actually, that's false information that you're trying to dispense.
You've been shown the evidence that the SBT didn't happen, and yet you
continue to spread that false information. As to the "only guess" in the
WCR, I think you forgot the "lone nut" theory. Another silly story. So
you're WRONG again.
You've offered no evidence. You have failed to offer a viable alternative
to the SBT.

Anthony Marsh
2018-05-15 13:10:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that no stranger came into the TSBD because no
one remembers seeing anyone. (I believe there was one stranger that came
in) but a hundred could come in at the right time and leave the same way.
Most people in the building were at the windows looking for the motorcade,
and not paying attention to the doors. Particularly the loading dock door
at the rear.
Post by BOZ
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that there was no one firing on the GK, even
though there was the story told by Walter Rischel that Lee Bowers in his
RR tower saw men firing on the motorcade,
There was no story told by Lee Bowers that he saw men firing on the
motorcade. He didn't say that under oath and he didn't say that when
interviewed by Mark Lane.
WRONG! What a record of errors you are making! YOU ARE NOT IN COURT!
Your talk of oath taking and interview by Mark Lane has nothing to do with
the situation. As you well know (but are pretending to not know), Walter
Rischel (who was mentioned above) told the story that he says was told to
him by Bowers, that Bowers saw men shooting at the motorcade at the fence
on the GK. All this was said above in the original statement, yet you
pretended to not se that. Who do you think you are kidding?
A statement made under oath under penalty of perjury carries far greater
weight than one made with no such ramification. Rishel could make up any
story he wanted to with no threat of legal ramifications. Freedom of
speech means freedom to lie.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
and Gordon Arnold said he had a
bullet fly over his shoulder from the fence on the GK, before he got out
of there quickly.
You have one criteria for deciding whether to believe a witness or not. If
that witness tells a story you want to believe, you assume that witness is
credible. It doesn't matter to you if there is any corroboration for what
the witness says or whether if fits the body of evidence. As long as it's
something you want to believe, you regard that as "proof".
WRONG yet again! It never stops, your constant errors! You have
guessed wrong again as to my thinking. I believe evidence and proof.
Yet almost never post any.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
On top of that, the LN zealot ASSUMES that because there was no rifle,
no shells that some one was NOT there firing on the motorcade, and so they
completely forget that some shooters recover their weapon and police their
brass, and some weapons don't eject their shells.
Ah those Assuming LNs!
LNs choose not to believe things for which there is no credible evidence.
We don't believe there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, or
grassy knoll shooters.
Amazing! And yet you believe the WCR!
Yes we do because there is lots of credible evidence to support that. The
fact that you can invent excuses to dismiss each and every piece of it
makes that evidence no less credible.
No. Just bullying alone does not prove a fact.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-13 19:35:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
proof.
For example, the conspiracy zealot assumes that a stranger came into the
TSBD with Oswald's rifle and shot JFK. Without proof. No witness saw a
stranger come in before the assassination. No stranger was seen leaving.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that no stranger came into the TSBD because no
one remembers seeing anyone. (I believe there was one stranger that came
in) but a hundred could come in at the right time and leave the same way.
Most people in the building were at the windows looking for the motorcade,
and not paying attention to the doors. Particularly the loading dock door
at the rear.
Post by BOZ
The conspiracy zealot assumes without proof that an assassin was firing
from the grassy knoll. No credible witness saw an assassin there. No
rifle was found. No shells were found. He has no proof. He says never rely
on witnesses yet he relies on earwitnesses to argue that Frank Bender was
firing from the knoll. No proof. Just an assumption.
The LN zealot ASSUMES that there was no one firing on the GK, even
though there was the story told by Walter Rischel that Lee Bowers in his
RR tower saw men firing on the motorcade,
There was no story told by Lee Bowers that he saw men firing on the
motorcade. He didn't say that under oath and he didn't say that when
interviewed by Mark Lane.
Post by mainframetech
and Gordon Arnold said he had a
bullet fly over his shoulder from the fence on the GK, before he got out
of there quickly.
You have one criteria for deciding whether to believe a witness or not. If
that witness tells a story you want to believe, you assume that witness is
credible. It doesn't matter to you if there is any corroboration for what
the witness says or whether if fits the body of evidence. As long as it's
something you want to believe, you regard that as "proof".
Post by mainframetech
On top of that, the LN zealot ASSUMES that because there was no rifle,
no shells that some one was NOT there firing on the motorcade, and so they
completely forget that some shooters recover their weapon and police their
brass, and some weapons don't eject their shells.
Ah those Assuming LNs!
LNs choose not to believe things for which there is no credible evidence.
We don't believe there is a Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, or
grassy knoll shooters.
Hey, what you got against Santa Claus? Did he give you a lump of coal in
your stocking one year? News Flash, that wasn't left by Santa, that was
left by your parents. Hint, hint.
Loading...