Jump to content
The Education Forum

John Iacoletti

Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About John Iacoletti

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,586 profile views
  1. It’s not at all clear that Leavelle is “meeting with” this woman. They are just sitting there and not interacting.
  2. But my point is, there is no legitimate reason to think that either one of them is Jeraldean Reid. It doesn’t look much like her at all. We have a 1930 school yearbook photo of her and a 1967 snapshot for comparison purposes.
  3. But the footage of the woman sitting next to Leavelle (they don’t appear to be interacting, btw) was taken on Sunday. They are talking about Oswald being shot immediately before this sequence.
  4. Why would anybody think that this woman is Mrs Reid?
  5. You don't need his permission -- he doesn't own it.
  6. I'm thinking the woman on the far left of the Christmas photo who looks kinda pregnant might be Carolyn Arnold. There are several assumptions in Sandy's argument about Calvery though: 1. That watching the motorcade together means standing shoulder to shoulder in a row (they all said they were about halfway between Houston and the Triple underpass, BTW). 2. That seeing no other "woman in white" in known footage must mean that there was only one in Dealey Plaza. 3. That woman-in-white necessarily continued to accompany tall-and-wide woman after leaving the Elm street curb. 4. That pulling on somebody's arm (if that's really happening) means that she is your companion.
  7. Sorry if I’m beating a dead horse here, but I’ve been told by an unreliable source that Sandy Larsen once posted two images showing that “plaid bars” on Lovelady's shirt were a perfect match with the shirt of the man walking up the Elm extension. Is that accurate?
  8. I found Linda's Sharon in the 1960 Thomas Jefferson High School yearbook. Unless she graduated at 16 (which is possible - I did!), my Sharon at Adamson High would make more sense. She would have been 18 in 1962.
  9. Where did you get the high school photo of Simmons? This is the one I found. 1962 Adamson High.
  10. Please explain how this is wrong. The proposition is "If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side." If you turn the K over and it has a vowel on the other side, then this card has a vowel on one side and something other than an even number on the other side (a K). The proposition would be proved false. Edit: I see that Glenn corrected himself in a later post. It does change the answer if you stipulate that the cards must have a letter on one side and a number on the other.
  11. The other side of the K card could be a vowel. There's nothing in Glenn's problem statement that excludes this possibility. If there is a vowel on the other side of the K card, then the proposition is proved false. You cannot discard the K card.
  12. in fact, i think that it IS the case that each card contains both letter and number - in another version of this it so states. but this would not effect (affect?) the answer. if you turn over K, you learn the same thing regardless what's on the other side - even or odd, letter or number, it neither proves nor disproves the postulate. It most certainly matters if you state beforehand that each card must have a letter on one side and a number on the other. If that is not a given, then you have to turn over the K because it might have a vowel on the other side. If that is a given then you only have to turn over the E and the 7. Also, some people are making the mistake of thinking that the puzzle makes a distinction between the top side and the bottom side. The postulate is "if a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side", it doesn't say "if a card has a vowel on the top side, then it has an even number on the bottom side". So you can't just check the card that has a vowel on the top.
  13. This is an awesome puzzle. My answer is that you have to turn over everything but the 4. Some people are making the assumption that each card must have a letter on one side and a number on the other. That's not a given. The "K" could have a vowel on the other side. It's irrelevant what's on the other side of the 4 because if it's a vowel it confirms the proposition but if it's not it doesn't violate the proposition. You only need to look for falsifying evidence .
×
×
  • Create New...