Mark Knight

I cited Gray's Anatomy as an unbiased outside source. I even suggested you check it out, and let it guide you as to what is and is not physically possible as far as bullets passing into, and possibly through, the human body...and what damage to expect when they contact which areas of the body. You can't POSSIBLY be that....nevermind. You probably are. Did I suggest Horne? Did I suggest Lifton? Or did you attempt to put words in my mouth [or on my computer screen, as the case may be]? And I INSIST that you not call me by my first name. I have no desire to be on a first-name basis with you. When I refer to you, or when I address you, you might notice that I do my best to use "Mr." in front of your last name. I would hope you would extend the same courtesy, if you can find any courtesy within you.

Clay Shaw? Pshaw.....

Mr. Gaal, You have to excuse your adversary. Apparently the sum total of his investigative skills begins and ends with skimming Bugliosi for quotes or videos. The sum total of his knowledge of ballistics and anatomy and physiology derives from what his "heroes" have written on the subjects, and not from any actual research of his own from unbiased sources. [Guess he might now call Gray's Anatomy textbook an equally biased text.] He would, in my opinion, rather "educate" himself from the works of his heroes than actually explore, via unbiased outside sources, whether the conclusions his heroes propose are actually anatomical and physiological possible But continue to engage him in this fashion. He'll continue to ridicule your posts without doing any independent investigation, and this will degrade into a farce rather than a discussion...which is what he seems to crave. "Vince said it, I believe it..." That's called faith, not proof.

Glenn, The reason I only mentioned the E is because, even if we assume a larger deck of cards is available, the MAXIMUM number of different letters in the English language is 26, and the maximum number of vowels is 5. But the maximum number of even numbers is infinite. And just because we know that a vowel will ALWAYS have an even number on the opposite side, there was NOTHING in the problem that stated that the converse was true, that an even number would ALWAYS have ONLY a vowel on the opposite side. That would be an ASSUMPTION, since it was not stated anywhere in the parameters of the problem. THAT is my only "problem" with the stated solution to the problem: that one has to make an unsupported ASSUMPTION that ALL even numbers ONLY have vowels on the opposite side, simply because all vowels have an even number on the opposite side. [simply put: unless it is expressly stated that the converse of the original "given" is true, we can not decide that it IS true without making an ASSUMPTION that it is true.] That, to me, is the single flaw in the "correct" answer to the test. [in a court of law, that would be grounds for an objection, "assuming facts not in evidence."]

The .22 round--assuming we're talking about .22 rimfire and not .22 Hornet or another such bottlenecked cartridges--would, IMHO, be highly susceptible to wind drift at much over 50 yards...based upon personal experience. Trying to attain repeatable accuracy with a subsonic .22 at distances over 50 yards is akin to buying a lottery ticket: somebody might eventually have a winner, but MOST WILL NOT.

Midway. That would likely be the other airport in Chicago.

If you've read Dr. Finck's HSCA testimony, you could see that 'the game was afoot' when Finck attempted to probe the wound. No bullet was found, so he ordered x-rays to try to find it. When the x-rays were taken, according to the x-ray tech the internal organs had already been removed. So why hasn't anyone asked if the internal organs were checked for (1) a bullet, or (2) a bullet track that could be dissected? I suspect the answer to the question above is...either they already knew the answer, or they didn't want to discover the answer. And since the entire purpose of an autopsy, under normal circumstances, is to discover answers...then perhaps whoever supervised the removal of the organs already knew the answer [and simply chose not to reveal it]. Just a thought....

Robert, sometimes we condition ourselves to try to answer the question that wasn't asked. It's a big part of being human. We all do it from time to time. Sometimes we need to slow down and ask ourselves, "Exactly what IS the question asking?" I know that defense attorneys prefer that their clients and their witnesses confine their answers to the questions that are specifically asked. So sometimes the logic train jumps the rails when we try to answer more than we can possibly know from the data we have. [A certain Walker-did-it theory comes to mind here.]

Mr. Trejo, You're creating a false either/or choice. It's not a case of either Walker coached witnesses, or the WC did. That is a case of false alternatives since there may have been a lot more reasons for folks to go along with the "official" narrative. There are more than two reasons to rob a bank. Some to do it to prove they can. Some do it for the money. Some do it for the adrenaline rush. Some do it because they have a problem of some sort with the bank. It's not an "either/or" situation. Different individuals have different individual motivations.

Mr. Von Pein, I thank you for an honest and forthright answer. PERSONALLY, I figure Ford didn't believe that anyone would be looking further into the JFK assassination, once the Warren Commission Report was filed. So my guess is that he actually thought he could say anything about Oswald being guilty without ever being challenged. And, honestly...I don't recall anyone ever challenging this statement of Ford's while he was alive. I think he was THAT zealous in his desire to convince the public of Oswald's guilt, that he believed that one "little white lie" wouldn't matter, because if no one followed up, his "little white lie" would never be discovered. And he truly ALMOST got away with it.

I'm not arguing against your scenario. My comment was posted before yours, not after.

To apply this to JUST the situation on the 6th floor of the TSBD... Just because three empty shells from a 6.5 mm Carcano were found on the floor near the window, that is not necessarily PROOF that the shells were fired that day, or in that location. Now...have I stated anything that is incorrect up to this point?

Nope. You are making assumptions. Remember the examples? Let's say we are given the statement, "If it is raining, then I will get wet." It does NOT necessarily follow that " If I am wet, then it is raining." Just because ONE statement is true, it does NOT mean that the converse must also be true. And nowhere in the original statement does it say that even numbers are ONLY found on the reverse of cards with vowels. For all we know, even numbers might also be on the reverse of some cards with consonants. The "rule," as given to us, ONLY applied to vowels having even numbers on the reverse side. ANYTHING else we conclude is NOT supported by the original statement we are given. ANYTHING else we conclude is merely an assumption.

Could it be here that Mr. Von Pein just MAY be willing to admit that at least one member of the Warren Commission was not 100% truthful when talking about the JFK assassination? If so...this is a day I thought I'd never see. I thought that, in DVP's world, only CT'er lied or thought that anyone connected with the WC had lied. I'm sure he'll likely find an excuse to reconcile why Ford's statement contradicts the evidence, but how neither the evidence nor Ford's words contain a lie. I'm just not certain how he'll perform such a contortionist act, but I'm sure we'll see it soon.

Robert, the word "only" is not found in the statement we are dealing with. The statement does not say that ONLY vowels will have even numbers on the reverse. The statement does not say that even numbers will ONLY have vowels on the reverse. Those are ASSUMPTIONS that are not based upon our statement. They MAY or MAY NOT be true. So turning over ANY card beyond the E would only tend to prove or disprove those ASSUMPTIONS, and not necessarily affect the statement we were given. Now...have I said anything that is incorrect?

Perhaps it might be that Mr. Ford and the truth were only passing acquaintances? Just a question....

The Nixon tapes are pretty damning toward Nixon. Had LBJ released the FBI report about Nixon and his people sabotaging the Paris talks in '68, I firmly believe the results of the '68 election would have been quite different. Then again....IF....

The reason I only went with the card with E is because that is the only one that met the criteria of the original statement. To expect the converse to be true--that if a card has an even number, it will have a vowel on the other side--well, that's NOT within the known parameters of the question. It may or may not have a vowel on the opposite side. And since our statement does not mention odd numbers or consonants, we cannot decide anything for certain. Either of those cards might have ANY number, or ANY letter, on the opposite side. After all, there was no statement that said that only letters had numbers on the opposite side of the card, or that only numbers had letters on the back side of the card. All we know is that cards with vowels on one side have even numbers on the opposite side. And the ONLY card with a vowel on it, of those we are given, is the E.

Was this addressed towards MY post?

OK...here's my shot at this. We are given the statement, 'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.' If the point of the exercise is to prove the statement, and ONLY to prove the statement, then we only need to turn over the card with the E. My logic is...since E is the only vowel, it is the only card we can turn that can prove the statement. I conclude that because K is not a vowel, so turning that card will neither prove nor disprove the statement. Since the statement does not say that ONLY cards with even numbers on one side have vowels on the other side, the results of turning over the card with the 7 on one side are inconsequential, relating to the statement we are given. And since the statement does NOT say that cards with even numbers on one side will ONLY have vowels on the opposite side, turning over the card with the 4 on one side is also inconsequential in relation to the statement. Therefore, turning only one card--the card with the E on one side--will prove [or disprove] the statement. Am I even still on topic here? Or did I drift off on a tangent?

There have been a lot of words posted on this thread regarding what Pat Speer has concluded. Many of you are castigating Mr. Speer for using the evidence we were given by the WC, claiming that the evidence doesn't accurately represent the truth. But let's look at this from a different angle. What Pat Speer has done is to take the evidence we were given--flawed or not--and use it to show that, even with their own evidence, the conclusions of the WC are unsupportable. Mr. Speer has educated himself in many different areas of anatomy and physiology, and other areas of scientific analysis, and used that knowledge to show that the conclusions of the WC are dubious at best, and fraudulent at worst. I, for one, give him a pat on the back for his diligent research. Unlike DVP's stereotype of CT'ers, Speer has NOT called the evidence bogus; instead, he has used the evidence we were given to show the conclusions were bogus. Now, you can debate the legitimacy of the evidence all you want. BUT if it shows that the SBT is impossible, then the disagreement between Mr. Varnel and Mr. Speer can be considered similar to the sorting of "gnat sh*t and pepper," as one forum member used to express it awhile back. For the record, I'm more aligned with Mr. Varnel as far as the position of the back wound. I just have no reason to get all argumentative [original word self-censored in the interest of good taste] about any theory that, essentially, arrives at the same conclusion as I do. And now return you to your regular programming. [Apparently Mr. Speer and I were posting at the same time.]

Dr. Finck told the HSCA that he tried to use a metal probe to determine the bullet path, but was unsuccessful. So then he had the X-rays made when, according to the X-Ray techs, the lungs and internal organs had already been removed. Hmmmmm. So what were they EXPECTING to find, if the internal cavity was already empty? My OPINION is that they were simply taking the x-rays to be able to say...they took x-rays but didn't find a bullet. Sounds like a basic CYA move, when the autopsy report and the x-rays were meant to never be disclosed.

Succinct and exactly on-point.

Fair enough. But allow me to clarify my point: the political situation in 2015 leads FROM the JFK assassination, not TO it. I'm a bit more interested in being able to prove how the perpetrator got TO the assassination, and exactly who was [knowingly] involved prior to the assassination. While, to some degree, we can go to the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations and work backwards, attempting to work backwards from the politics of 2015 seems to be more of an exercise in frustration. I do understand how JFK's assassination affected world politics afterwards. And I do believe that the particular policies regarding both Vietnam and the Middle East were radically altered after JFK's assassination. BUT I do NOT think it's fruitful to pursue today's liberal vs. conservative squabbles as a means to solving the JFK assassination. I don't think that turning this into a Rush Limbaugh vs. Al Franken forum is gonna bring us any closer to learning the truth. Therefore, I propose nipping that sort of talk in the bud. Now, Mr. DiEugenio...is that somewhat clearer for you?

I am locking this topic because it IS primarily about present-day politics and only superficially touches on anything related to the JFK assasssination.