The Bus Stop Farce

[John Iacoletti]

Not legitimately.

It’s perfectly legitimate, despite your weak attempt to turn this into a dictionary argument.

[Bill Chapman]

Bill: Check the claims made by one Eclan Elliott. He said he was out driving looking for his 14 year old daughter when he saw a man he later identified as Oswald near the Beckley address. He said there was no one on the street at that time; that everyone was inside watching the news about the shooting.

He was interviewed by Gus Russo in "Live by the Sword." Part of his account is below.

Has it been established at what time Elcan saw Oswald? If it was after the Tippit killing, that might help to explain the (apparently) extended time he took to cover what was, purportedly, just a few minutes walk to the TT area.

However, Bugliosi writes:

"But if Oswald was walking back and forth in opposite directions and
going toward Lancaster Boulevard, it would not have been physically
possible for him to reach Tenth and Patton when we know he did."
V. Bugliosi; Page 46 of CD-ROM Endnotes; "Reclaiming History"; c.2007

[John Iacoletti]

“When we know he did”. LOL.

[Charles Collins]

An assumption is usually believed and perhaps even accepted to be true by the person making the assumption.

It doesn't mean that it is actually true, when there are alternatives to choose from. The selection of one over the others is what makes the assumption arbitrary.

Bowles states that his assumption is a rational one. He explains that it is not exact but for practical purposes it is accurate. He explains his methods and reasoning. And he invites others to examine his reasoning and decide for themselves just how accurate they believe it to be.


The selection of one over the others is what makes the assumption arbitrary.


Not no, but hell no. You are wrong and I have been said this many times.

If he had pulled the time out of thin air, THAT would be arbitrary. However, he selected 12:29:10 over the other possibilities after deriving it from other recorded events surrounding that time. THAT is what makes it a rational assumption. There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it.

[Charles Collins]

It’s perfectly legitimate, despite your weak attempt to turn this into a dictionary argument.

No it is not. Nor will it ever be anything resembling legitimate.

Address his methods and tell us exactly how they are anything but the opposite of arbitrary.

[Martin Weidmann]

Bowles states that his assumption is a rational one. He explains that it is not exact but for practical purposes it is accurate. He explains his methods and reasoning. And he invites others to examine his reasoning and decide for themselves just how accurate they believe it to be.


The selection of one over the others is what makes the assumption arbitrary.


Not no, but hell no. You are wrong and I have been said this many times.

If he had pulled the time out of thin air, THAT would be arbitrary. However, he selected 12:29:10 over the other possibilities after deriving it from other recorded events surrounding that time. THAT is what makes it a rational assumption. There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about it.

Bowles states that his assumption is a rational one.

This is so stupid. Have you ever heard somebody say that his assumption is not a rational one?

As far as everything else goes; there is just no talking to you. For a guy who claims to have no problem admitting when he's wrong (which is BS) you dig yourself in way too deep and well beyond the level of any rational discussion.

[Charles Collins]

Bowles states that his assumption is a rational one.

This is so stupid. Have you ever heard somebody say that his assumption is not a rational one?

As far as everything else goes; there is just not talking to you. For a guy who claims to have no problem admitting when he's wrong you dig yourself in way too deep and well beyond the level of any rational discussion.

Have you ever heard somebody say that his assumption is not a rational one?

Many times. It is often used for hypothetical scenarios.


You are the one who doesn’t make any sense. The only reason I am continuing this discussion is because it bothers me that you try to spread your misconceptions as correct. They are dead wrong.

[John Iacoletti]

Despite Charles’ irrational insistence otherwise, “assumption” and “arbitrary” are not mutually exclusive.