Mark Knight

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.

OK...let's stop right now and get the terms correct. First, since there was no MAC-10 or similar pistol involved [the MAC-10 was invented in 1964, so it couldn't have been used to kill Tippit], there was NO "automatic" pistol involved. What Mr. Von Pein described is correctly referred to as a SEMIAUTOMATIC, as one has to pull the trigger for each shot. A semiautomatic does automatically eject spent rounds and load fresh rounds into the chamber from a removable magazine. The Smith & Wesson revolver that was entered into evidence is a DOUBLE-ACTION revolver, meaning that one does not need to manually cock the hammer in order to fire any rounds from the pistol, and the bullets are individually loaded into a revolving cylinder. It would be GREAT if EVERYONE would use the correct terminology, as it might reduce misunderstandings in the discussions. [And I really HATE to hear a semiautomatic referred to as an "automatic," because that's a tactic anti-gunners use to falsely equate the two.]

Good stuff, Mr. Burnham. Thanks for sharing it.

Glenn, I agree that today's politics has next-to-nothing to do with the JFK assassination, except as today's politics has been shaped by the history since. The politics of '63 have MUCH to do with the assassination, I believe.

OK...I'm gonna comment ONCE on the TEA Party...and then I'm going to expect the conversation to likely move on. Originally, the TEA Party WAS a grass-roots organization. Folks who believed they were paying too much of their income in taxes. THEN a large number of OTHER folks, with OTHER agendas and VERY deep pockets, hijacked the original TEA Party name, and used it to espouse other non-tax-related causes. The TEA Party of today bears little resemblance to the TEA Part of 5-8 years ago.

Thank you, Mr. Gaal. I wasn't trying to imply that I disagreed with the material you quoted. I simply wondered where it came from, and wanted to give you a chance to give credit where credit is due.

"...Clay Shaw, a prominent civic leader in New Orleans and known CIA asset to whom we will soon be introduced, sat on its board...." So I would assume that Mr. Gaal is copying this from some other source. Would you care to share your source with us, Mr. Gaal? I'm not comfortable with unreferenced sources.

Whether you believe the bullets were planted or not--and I don't believe they were planted--this shows a gross mishandling of either (a) evidence or ( personal property, depending upon which class you assign to the bullets. Mr. Burnham is correct on the proper way to deal with both personal property AND evidence collected from the person of a suspect. I tend to think that finding the bullets later is simply evidence of sloppy police work AND poor procedure in handling evidence or personal property. If cops missed FIVE BULLETS in Oswald's pocket, what else might they have missed? A handcuff key, for example, might have turned the tables on an officer at some point.

So we're seeing a bit of sleight-of-hand with the math, as it regards the 10-inch vertical distance vs. the horizontal distance. As a good friend used to say: "Don't surprise me none...."

About that cosmoline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmoline Here's the important part, the part that applies to the paper bag: "Cosmoline that is fairly fresh, or that has been hermetically sealed in a plastic bag or shrink wrap, remains a grease-like viscous fluid, and mostly wipes off with a rag, leaving only a thin film behind. Cosmoline that is older and has had air exposure usually solidifies after a few years, as the volatile hydrocarbon fraction evaporates and leaves behind only the waxy hydrocarbon fraction. The solid wax does not readily wipe off. It can be scraped off, although the scraping is laborious and leaves crumbs to be swept or vacuumed away. A useful method of cleaning a tool of crusted cosmoline is to allow a penetrating oil (such as CRC 5-56, CLP, or equivalent) to soak into it for several minutes or hours, which typically restores it to a viscous-fluid state, allowing it to be wiped off. An additional method of cosmoline removal on new parts is to use a closed-cabinet parts washer that utilizes the power wash process. Removal of cosmoline with an aqueous parts washer requires high heat, the proper aqueous detergent, and the correct hydraulic impact pressure.[1] All cleaning methods create waste that must be disposed of in the proper manner. Aqueous washing or solvent cleaning both have accepted methods to dispose of the "sludge" created. Cosmoline is mostly waxes and hydrocarbons and creates a regulated waste that is not difficult to dispose of properly. It has been reported that talcum powder can be used as an absorbent of Cosmoline by packing the powder around the item to be cleaned and applying sufficient heat to melt the solid film allowing the compound to be wicked from the coated surface into the talcum, which can be scraped off more easily.[2]' Having spent several years in the auto parts business, I'm familiar with parts being coated with cosmoline. The fresher the cosmoline, the stickier and oilier it is. The longer the surface has been coated with cosmoline, the more solid it becomes. BUT, in my personal experience, no matter how old the coating of cosmoline, the sticky quality never goes away. Now...make of that what you will regarding the Carcano and the bag.

Mrs. Sanders sure included a LOT of hearsay in her statement to the FBI, it seems to me.... Funny how she spoke in 3rd person, too. [For those who didn't catch it...that second line is intended to be sarcasm.]