Post by BOZ
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without
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!