There is no "assumption" about this. If there is evidence that places someone named, for example, "Martin" in "Europe" this morning, and evidence that places him in Texas several hours later, then we know as an absolute fact that Martin has flown from "Europe" to Texas that day on a plane since that is the ONLY way for him to have been in both places within the known timeframe. Just because there may be no witness who can later confirm his presence on any specific plane raises no doubt about this conclusion much less proves he wasn't on a plane. The conclusion is premised on the only possible explanation.
You are attempting to raise doubt about Oswald's presence on the 6th floor by suggesting that witnesses preclude him from having used the stairs. That is a false premise because your witness testimony is not sufficient in detail and recollection to the level necessary to support your desired conclusion. We are talking about a matter of seconds for Oswald to have descended the stairs from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor. No witness precludes him from having done so. You are correct that no witness can confirm his presence on the stairs either. However, the evidence places him on the 6th floor at 12:30. Oswald's gun is found there. Fired bullet casings from his gun are found by the very window from which the shots were fired at 12:30. His prints are on the boxes etc. Oswald provides no credible alibi or explanation for this evidence. Instead he lies about ownership of a rifle. You don't accept that evidence as conclusive of his presence on the 6ht floor because you apply an impossible standard of proof. But any reasonable person, in any other crime, accepts that this evidence places him on the 6th floor at 12:30 absent a credible alibi or explanation from Oswald as to how his rifle came to be found there. None of which Oswald provided.
So what we are left with is persuasive evidence that places him on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then his presence in the lunchroom a few minutes later. And the only way to have gotten between these two points in the known timeframe is down the stairs. Thus, if Oswald can be placed on the 6th floor at 12:30 (as it does) and then in the lunchroom a few minutes later, that proves by implication that he took the stairs. It is the only possible explanation for how he got between those two points. It is conclusive of the matter despite there being no witness who can place him on the steps because it is the only possible explanation supported by the known facts. No one has to otherwise prove this to your subjective satisfaction for this to be a fact. No witness has to confirm it for this to be a fact. That is as much as I can dumb this down.
So many words and it's still all BS.
That is as much as I can dumb this down. Well, I have to agree it's pretty dumb.
So what we are left with is persuasive evidence that places him on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then his presence in the lunchroom a few minutes later.Nothing of what you have written is "persuasive evidence" of anything!
You are attempting to raise doubt about Oswald's presence on the 6th floor by suggesting that witnesses preclude him from having used the stairs. Nope. I've been asking you, for six months now, to provide evidence that Oswald was indeed on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. I don't need to raise doubt about that. When you can't provide the evidence I asked for, that by itself is sufficient reason for doubt.
You are correct that no witness can confirm his presence on the stairs either. However, the evidence places him on the 6th floor at 12:30. Oswald's gun is found there.There is no evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor. You can't even show conclusively that the rifle found there belonged to him. But even if you could prove that, how in the world does that prove that Oswald was there as well? The simple answer (but too difficult for you to understand) is that it doesn't.
Fired bullet casings from his gun are found by the very window from which the shots were fired at 12:30. His prints are on the boxes etc. Oswald provides no credible alibi or explanation for this evidence. Instead he lies about ownership of a rifle.Assumes facts not in evidence. None of this proves that Oswald was on the 6th floor. Most of it isn't even evidence of anything significant.
You don't accept that evidence as conclusive of his presence on the 6ht floor because you apply an impossible standard of proof. There's the pathetic prosecutor with no solid case again who complains to the Judge that he doesn't like the Jury because they don't buy his BS. LOL
But any reasonable person, in any other crime, accepts that this evidence places him on the 6th floor at 12:30 absent a credible alibi or explanation from Oswald as to how his rifle came to be found there. None of which Oswald provided.I seriously doubt that you have any clue what reasonable people think.
So what we are left with is persuasive evidence that places him on the 6th floor at 12:30 and then his presence in the lunchroom a few minutes later. And the only way to have gotten between these two points in the known timeframe is down the stairs. Thus, if Oswald can be placed on the 6th floor at 12:30 (as it does) and then in the lunchroom a few minutes later, that proves by implication that he took the stairs. I would actually agree with you, if (and it's a massive "if") you can actually show that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. You clearly can't do that. All you can do is assume that he was.
No one has to otherwise prove this to your subjective satisfaction for this to be a fact. No witness has to confirm it for this to be a fact.Translation; I haven't got the evidence, so I'm just going to say that I don't need to prove it to begin with.
Jessie Curry was right when he said that nobody has ever been able to place Oswald on the 6th floor when the shooting took place. He, unlike you, is honest about it.
The bottom line is that there is not a shred of evidence for Oswald being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and coming down the stairs, unnoticed, within 75 seconds after the last shot. The WC lawyers were clever enough to deal with this issue by basically ignoring it and making assumptions. You are clearly not so clever.
