Glenn Nall

you're reading way too much into this.

let me try to say this without giving up the answer. you may not like it, but you're not an idiot and if you have not answered the problem then perhaps there IS a challenge to it, and i'm hoping that at least some OTHERS will find the fun in it.

OK - there IS NO twist. it's the common error this doctor says many people make in jumping to an errant conclusion from a given set of circumstances.

the statement is: If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.

If a vowel is visible on a side of the card, then the rule states that an EVEN number will be found on the other side of the card when it's turned over.

it does NOT say "If a vowel is seen on a card 'then you can see if'" anything...

The premise is: EVEN NUMBERS will ALWAYS be found on the other side of a VOWEL.

that's all it says.

NOW read the challenge...

See, I told you that you were changing it in the middle of answering. First this is the statement:

'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.' and you have now changed that to:

"EVEN NUMBERS will ALWAYS be found on the other side of a VOWEL."

That doesn't even come close to being the same thing.

See that first sentence If it has .... then it has.

NO, Ken. first of all, I haven't CHANGED anything as far as instructions or descriptions go. these are the same words that were used on the original site where the test is. and i haven't changed a letter. I've ONLY described to you what that statement MEANS, and you have some idea that it means something entirely different than what most othhers think it means.

If it is raining then I will get wet MEANS that I WILL ALWAYS get wet IF IT IS RAINING. This is what has been established as a premise, a conditional statement, a given. it's what we're trying to prove or disprove.

If I bang my knee then I will scream MEANS I WILL ALWAYS scream WHEN I bang my knee.

If there's a vowel on a card, THEN there's an EVEN number on the other is the same thing as saying THERE WILL BE an even number on the other side of the card that shows a vowel.

this is the statement we are trying to prove or disprove.

If you turn the E and a an even number is present, then SO FAR, the statement is proven. If we turn the E and a 7, or a G, is there, then the statement is disproved.

those are exactly the same statements.

the key is understanding EXACTLY what this means:

If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.

a lot like understanding exactly and ONLY what three empty shells on the floor means...

unless someone has a direct question, I'll stay out of this for now. if someone hits the right answer, or doesn't, i'll leave it to discussion.

i like seeing how people think - this doesn't mean that one way of thinking is right and another wrong - one way may lead to the correct conclusion more easily than another - and one way may lead AWAY from the correct answer, (which is not a 'right' way of thinking if fact is what's sought, i guess).

John Dolva's explanation is what's so neat about this...

If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side. If this is stated correctly, then you do not get to see what is on the other side of a card unless you see that it has a vowel on the side you are looking at . If a vowel, then you can look. No vowel, no lookee.

this is what's so interesting. i'm not trying to be critical, i'm asking to learn and to help...

From exactly where do you get this conclusion?

"If this is stated correctly, then you do not get to see what is on the other side of a card unless you see that it has a vowel on the side you are looking at..."

some study material, with which you can get closer to the answer or blow your minds with heavy traffic.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/conditional-reasoning.html

John Dolva. There are 2 cards that can immediately DISprove the statement. The 2 are not the 2 you mention.

I think, respectfully, you are overthinking the original statement. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Glenn has told us not to overthink, nor read too much into the problem.

well put. good hint.

not exactly correct. depending on what is revealed on the other side, turning certain other(s) can tell you something. this is the problem, in fact - finding what you can learn from turning a card (asking the right question).

and not reading the question correctly is probably the single biggest mistake made, i'm seeing.

and not reading the question correctly is probably the single biggest mistake made, i'm seeing.

I'm gonna bet that 'not stating the question correctly' is going to be the biggest mistake made.

as i've said about FIVE times, Ken. i used the technology within my brand new Windows 10 to perform a COPY of the original text as is available on the website from whence this test came, and used the same technology to perform a PASTE function into the POST i created.

This has the result of taking each letter of the original text and transferring it, in order, to the new document so that it, in all intents and purposes, save for some protons, probably, is identical to the original.

I have been programming in multiple computer languages for about 12 years. People pay me to do this for them. one of the first things I learned, out of the womb, pretty much, was the art of copy and paste without screwing up the objects that i was wanting to move.

My MOTHER can even copy and paste, and she can't even feed herself. (not strictly true, sorry mom).

what diction and grammar is presented with the said question would have been the choice of its author. not mine. if, unlike the rest of the people who are gladly and harmoniously participating in this exercise, you feel that the question is trickery or otherwise poorly worded, bitch to the doctors who wrote it. I'll send you the links to their websites in a PM if you feel that it will help you arrive at the answer any better.

would you like me to send the link to you? everyone else seems to be engaging and learning in this thing, and i don't want to cut it off by posting the answer.

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 .

The "K" could have a vowel on the other side. No it can't. Vowels have even numbers on the back side, not other letters.

this is one of the errors that some people are making, and the point of the exercise:

Vowels have even numbers on the back side, not other letters.

the condition is simply this: if it's a vowel, then the other side is an even number. and nothing else.

there is nothing that states, or implies, that:

consonants cannot have an even number, or another consonant, or an odd number, or a naked - goat - on the other side.

there is nothing that states, or implies, that:

a person cannot turn over any card unless it shows X or until the "if" is satisfied.

turning E over does one of two things: it proves the statement TRUE - SO FAR - if the other side is an EVEN #, --- OR --- it proves it false right away if there is NOT an EVEN number there.

the mission is to prove the statement true or false with the least amount of turns with the given set of cards.

so if you turn E and there's a 2, -> so far, the statement is true. if you turn K, then you have to ask yourself what is proven under the ensuing situation. if there's a 3, then what? if there's a 4, then what? if there's a Z, then what? if there's a nude goat, then what? so is it necessary to turn K?

and so on and so forth...

one thing i've tried to do is write a replica of this test using variables available from the JFK files. it's not easy.

"You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?"

this is just a variant of the numbers and letters. it does state here, in fact, that each card will be one side alpha and the other numeric, as I think Robert decided, but i don't see as how that makes a difference in arriving at the solution (which has already been found in this thread, by the way).

to JFK:

A set of givens (what we know):

LHO was seen on 6 of TSBD

a rifle registered to LHO was found on 6 the day the pres was shot.

bullets SHELLS matching the RIFLE were found on the floor of 6.

LHO left TSBD soon after the shooting

i tried to arrange these or something like these into a similar if then statement so as to THEN seek a LOGICAL conclusion of some kind or another.

for instance:

IF LHO was seen on 6 and the RIFLE was found on 6, THEN ... see, it's hard to establish a truth, since we are in fact working with a real case and real facts...

how about:

IF the SHELLS found on 6 match the RIFLE found on 6, THEN it is established that the SHELLS were FIRED in that RIFLE (now, technically one does not prove the next, so this works just like the RULE IF a VOWEL, then an EVEN number. it's given to us, so we can go with the SHELLS WERE FIRED from the RIFLE).

and the puzzle:

WHAT has to be shown to prove that LHO did or did NOT fire that RIFLE on that day...?

i don't think that works too well as a replica of this puzzle, but it's good exercise thinking of these facets in these terms...

A set of givens that we know:

LHO was seen on 6 of TSBD

a rifle registered to LHO was found on 6 the day the pres was shot.

bullets SHELLS matching the RIFLE were found on the floor of 6.

LHO left TSBD soon after the shooting

I have never seen it proven that LHO had a rifle registered to him.

that's right, technically. my assumption has been that it was registered in his name in formality only - but they didn't register rifles to persons' names back then, i don't think.

so i was simplifying the terms for the sake of the exercise; it was assumed by "them" that the rifle was LHO's because it came to his mailbox. but, as you're pointing out, even if that were a logical conclusion, it doesn't show at all that he took the gun to work, or fired it, etc. which is part of the terms in that it's either a false assumption or a true one. In other words, i threw it in there for people to have to think about before they can leap to LHO firing the gun. this is how DVP and others are saying that it's obvious he did the shooting, because he takes a small given and makes it bigger than it is (and he/they doesn't/don't realize it)

LHO was seen on 6 of TSBD - yes, but so what?

a rifle registered to LHO was found on 6 the day the pres was shot. - yes, but so what?, or - maybe, but so what?

bullets SHELLS matching the RIFLE were found on the floor of 6 - yes, but so what?

LHO left TSBD soon after the shooting - yes, but so what?

these are really not that good - this is really why i was trying to get someone to help come up with a better set of conditions with which this exercise can be seen realistically.

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.]

right, or even "if there are shells on the ground and the nearby gun is registered to Lee, then Lee fired the gun."

a person is thinking, "he very probably fired the gun," and in most cases very probably works, but it is NOT "proven to the exclusion of all other possibilities that Lee fired the gun," and in something like a murder case, these two differences are as different as night and day.

I'm surprised you haven't gotten the answer yet, Mark. but I haven't read the rest of the thread.

i'm torn between providing the answer and the links to the tests, or throwing in some wrenches...

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.

What a back-assward way to approach the evidence.

Mark, it would be one thing for Pat Speer to declare that even with their own fraudulent evidence the WC conclusions are untenable -- but Pat insists the improperly prepared autopsy evidence is infallible!

How many violations of autopsy protocol were involved in the BOH photo and the written-in-pen "measurements"?

More than a half-dozen!

Does it make sense to declare such evidence infallible when it is repeatedly contradicted by the physical evidence, the witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical documents?

Please explain the logic here, Mark, because I know Pat can't.

Mark, this is another waste of air. You gave it an admirable attempt, but to no avail. He'll be insulting Pat's family next...

don't waste your time.

I don't mean to annoy anyone - i do feel that this is an appropriate (and fun) topic in each of us understanding more what's involved in the conclusion forming process which can either lead to errors in deduction or to progress in our pursuit of accuracy and truth in the solution.

one of the real reasons i'm into this thing so much is my passion for 'problem solving,' and i'm sure that's the case for many of ya'll. so these kinds of things are fun, and good for our brains (which we need to solve this thing!)

i'm just pasting in this little bit of text and this quick test i found (that I failed) without the answer. if any of you have seen it already, which is very likely, please don't publish the answer, or cheat.

so, check it out:

If...then...

Conditional reasoning is based on an 'if A then B' construct that posits B to be true if A is true.

Note that this leaves open the question of what happens when A is false, which means that in this case, B can logically be either true or false.

Conditional traps

A couple of definitions: In the statement 'If A then B', A is the antecedent and B is the consequent.

You can affirm or deny either the antecedent or consequent, which may lead to error.

Denying the consequent

Denying the consequent means going backwards, saying 'If B is false, then A must also be false.' Thus if you say 'If it is raining, I will get wet', then the trap is to assume that if I am not getting wet then it is not raining.

Denying the antecedent

Denying the antecedent is making assumptions about what will happen if A is false. Thus if you say 'If it is raining, I will get wet' and is not raining, I might assume that I will not get wet. But then I could fall in the lake.

Affirming the consequent

This is making assumptions about A if B is shown to be true. Thus if I make the statement 'If it is raining, I will get wet', then if I am getting wet it does not mean that it is raining.

The card trap

A classic trap was created some years ago;

Four cards are laid out as below:

The condition is now established (true): 'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.'

The problem is to decide which are the minimum cards that need to be turned over to prove that the conditional statement is true. How many and which card(s)?

Discuss it among yourselves...

All four cards have to be turned over. The "K" could have an even number on the other side, and the "7" could have a vowel on the other side. To only turn over the "E" and the "4" would be to make an assumption about the other two cards.

Edit:

I changed my answer from four cards to two, the "E" and the "4", after looking more closely at the conditions. Our statement is only establishing a relationship between vowels and even numbers, and says nothing about consonants and odd numbers. In other words, consonants and odd numbers can have anything they want on the reverse side, and it will not affect the stated condition.

Edit:

On the other hand, if the "K" had an even number on the reverse, or the "7" had a vowel on the reverse, that would tend to invalidate the statement. I think I will go with four again.

almost, but not quite...

I am making an assumption that the cards have a letter on one side and a number on the reverse. This may not be true as it is not stipulated in the original premise.

Going on that assumption, you would have to turn over all cards except the K.

The E to prove there is an even number on the reverse, the 4 to prove there is a vowel on the reverse, and the 7 to prove there is a consonant on the reverse.

Of course, my original assumption may be in error.

Terry, I owe you an apology - you may be correct in that the cards each contain both a letter and a number. another version of this test says this is the case, but this version doesn't.

it doesn't matter, though. the answer is unaffected.

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 .

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.

good people - this is NOT MY test. I COPIED and PASTED the text into this thread, and I didn't change the answer in order to trick you.

From Wikipedia (I redacted the names so that no one cheats, and so that i get to use the word 'redacted' in a sentence):

"The [Doctor's Name Here] selection task (or four-card problem) is a logic puzzle devised by [Same Name Here] in 1966. It is one of the most famous tasks in the study of deductive reasoning. An example of the puzzle is:

You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red? (the problem stated in a different way)

A response that identifies a card that need not be inverted, or that fails to identify a card that needs to be inverted, is incorrect. The original task dealt with numbers (even, odd) and letters (vowels, consonants). <<< ...that's this one...

The importance of the experiment is not in justifying one answer of the ambiguous problem, but in demonstrating the inconsistency of applying the logical rules by the people when the problem is set in two different contexts but with very similar connection between the facts."

read more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Glenn,

First, apologies for my weasling comment.

Second, my nature is to question the formulation of questions. Which brings me to:

Third, the formulation of your question. You write:

The condition is now established (true): 'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.'

The problem is to decide which are the minimum cards that need to be turned over to prove that the conditional statement is true. How many and which card(s)?

Let's take each of your four cards. It turns out, each card must be turned over to see if the conditional statement is provisionally true for each of the four cards.

For example, the "4" card is turned over. The other side is "L". No conclusion can be reached.

For example, the "7" card is turned over. The other side is an "M". No conclusion can be reached.

For example. the "E" card is turned over. The other side is an "A". So we've got satisfaction of the conditional statement. But so what?

In the end, the conditional statement cannot be proved or disproved by your four-card example.

i'm back. first, i done forgot about that...

second - you're trying too hard (this is a famous study done decades ago by a couple of professionals. Their answer is correct, and it makes total sense once you hear it.).

read this again: The problem is SIMPLY to decide what are the minimum cards that need to be turned over to prove that the conditional statement is true.

another way it's been put is from this other version of the test:

You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a letter on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, M and O. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is a vowel?

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?

hell, Mark, i didn't mean to contradict you - i agree with this premise - it's NOT proven, as far as i know, by anyone.

only for the sake of trying to replicate this test did i use that scenario...

maybe you can write a better one that will be a good example of how reason is used in this thing...?

one thing i've tried to do is write a replica of this test using variables available from the JFK files. it's not easy.

"You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?"

this is just a variant of the numbers and letters. it does state here, in fact, that each card will be one side alpha and the other numeric, as I think Robert decided, but i don't see as how that makes a difference in arriving at the solution (which has already been found in this thread, by the way).

to JFK:

A set of givens (what we know):

LHO was seen on 6 of TSBD

a rifle registered to LHO was found on 6 the day the pres was shot.

bullets SHELLS matching the RIFLE were found on the floor of 6.

LHO left TSBD soon after the shooting

i tried to arrange these or something like these into a similar if then statement so as to THEN seek a LOGICAL conclusion of some kind or another.

for instance:

IF LHO was seen on 6 and the RIFLE was found on 6, THEN ... see, it's hard to establish a truth, since we are in fact working with a real case and real facts...

how about:

IF the SHELLS found on 6 match the RIFLE found on 6, THEN it is established that the SHELLS were FIRED in that RIFLE (now, technically one does not prove the next, so this works just like the RULE IF a VOWEL, then an EVEN number. it's given to us, so we can go with the SHELLS WERE FIRED from the RIFLE).

and the puzzle:

WHAT has to be shown to prove that LHO did or did NOT fire that RIFLE on that day...?

i don't think that works too well as a replica of this puzzle, but it's good exercise thinking of these facets in these terms...

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?

THAT's where i'm trying to get this to go - it's the whole purpose of this exercise, to exercise our decision-making in WHAT is a given and what is NOT...

the sounding out of the parameters, of our reasoning, of what exactly is postulated and what is not... these are all helpful in understanding a piece of evidence.

the question that is asked is what the existence of empty bullet shells on the floor alone expressly means, and NO MORE. what expressly can be derived from the existence of these shells and the existence of the rifle that IS registered to LHO (expressly, meaning EXACTLY and ONLY...?). adding suppositions only corrupts the evidence, and takes you to the incorrect answer, as is exemplified with this test.

However, saying that "if a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side" is the same as saying "if a card has an even number on one side, then it has a vowel on the other side". This establishes a rule for vowels and even numbers.

Finding an even number opposite of the "K" or a vowel opposite of the "7" will make the rule about vowels and even numbers untrue.

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.

Just because ONE statement is true, it does NOT mean that the converse must also be true.

when put like that, we all say, "well, of COURSE!," but it's our tendency to do just this that makes this test tricky.

i read Robert's input - it's amazing, we are all a bunch of higher than average, (some MUCH higher than average), intelligent people - and yet, the mistake that is being made is the simplest little thing...!

From Wikipedia:

"The _______ selection task (or four-card problem) is a logic puzzle devised by ______ _______ in 1966. It is one of the most famous tasks in the study of deductive reasoning. An example of the puzzle is:

You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?

A response that identifies a card that need not be inverted, or that fails to identify a card that needs to be inverted, is incorrect. The original task dealt with numbers (even, odd) and letters (vowels, consonants). <<< ...that's this one...

The importance of the experiment is not in justifying one answer of the ambiguous problem, but in demonstrating the inconsistency of applying the logical rules by the people when the problem is set in two different contexts but with very similar connection between the facts."

I am making an assumption that the cards have a letter on one side and a number on the reverse. This may not be true as it is not stipulated in the original premise.

Going on that assumption, you would have to turn over all cards except the K.

The E to prove there is an even number on the reverse, the 4 to prove there is a vowel on the reverse, and the 7 to prove there is a consonant on the reverse.

Of course, my original assumption may be in error.

yes, don't make assumptions - a good rule in any investigation, i'd assume ( ), is to not jump to any conclusions, no matter how small. yours will take you down the wrong road.

Zapruder's secretary testified that there was a young, black couple sitting on that bench right next to black dog man - why isn't it likely that it's one of those two? few people mention this possibility, so i'm thinking maybe her testimony is suspect? she said they were eating a lunch, and both took off running as the shots rang out. still, that figure is JUST next to the bench...

Robert, Mark, et al, I wish you'd go try your hand at my Exercise in Reason which is in reality a test written by this doctor guy in the early 70s to point out mistakes that are easily made in the areas of reason and logic.

Only 4% of the people he tested back then got it right, and it looks simple as hell.

(it's a matter of reading the problem correctly and understanding it correctly, which has not yet been done - well, by two people. ok, three. i missed it, too. but i know the answer now and it's fascinating to see how differenly people interpret some pretty simple instructions...)

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer?

Damn, i can see why Robert called you Princess.

in fact, it has been answered correctly within the very thread. I have promised to stay out of it for a minute because - and you may not like this idea - I was enjoying learning about the way people think, and i happen to think that SOME people enjoy a challenge for the sake of the challenge, even IF they are not able to solve it themselves, without finding an excuse for their inability to solve it.

i missed it. it wasn't because it's a trick question. it's because i didn't try hard enough. once i saw the answer, i saw my mistake, and I LEARNED FROM IT.

i was also proud that i did not need an excuse to justify my missing it.

it's not a trick question, Ken. You're just wrong. there's nothing wrong with being wrong. I've been wrong before, and I lived through it. The odds are in my favor of being wrong again. I will learn from it.

i learned from this exercise. and i learn from you...

If I'm wrong, it's not an honest question. I can already see that the answer is going to be that since there is a 4, the other side is a vowel. but that wasn't the question and the condition was 'if it is a vowel' then. 4 is not a vowel , so you don't get to see the other side.

the REASON you're missing the whole idea is because you jumped to a conclusion from the very start that just isn't true.

where did you get the idea that you are limited in which cards you can turn over? the instruction is simple and clear: choose the minimal # of cards that need to be turned over to show whether the postulate is true or false.

that is exactly what it means, and everybody else read it correctly. so if you insist that it's worded wrong, go tell the masses. I understood it, and the man who got it right understood it, and the professionals who created it felt that it was worded properly.

maybe they're wrong. want to email them?

I just read this medicolegal thing by some pathologist in which he describes JUST HOW MUCH of a joke this autopsy was in terms of overall Medical procedure as POLICY. These US Naval officers had no more choice in their procedures than an intern would have, and how it was, given their performance as they themselves have attested to, in fact, a travesty.

It's one thing for we laypersons to see the many mistakes that are visible and unconscionable, quite another to compare their actions to how it was supposed to be done.

If anyone hasn't come across it, it's "Medicolegal Investigation of the JFK Murder" by Charles Wilber.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. I take you are trying to excuse "these US Naval officers" for not knowing what they were doing, or else for having to follow procedures that were a joke. I would ask why the U.S.Navy would assign an autopsy of a president of the United States to people who didn't know what they were doing, or to require them to follow procedures that were a joke, or why the Navy would not know that its procedures were a joke. I happen to think that the Navy knew exactly what it was doing at Bethesda that night.

.

Sorry Ron. No way. First they did not normally do autopsys. They were 'doctors'. They were not allowed to publish there autopsy report/findings. The notes were burn, remember? Almost nothing they found was accepted. it was a total sham. Why were there so many people there? Why was the autopsy doctor not 'in charge'? They wanted the truth hidden, it was. We still do not have the 'truth'.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean that the "doctors" knew exactly what they were doing. It was the Navy that assigned some doctors to do the autopsy. It was the Navy who then wouldn't let the doctors be in charge. It was the Navy that allowed a roomful of people. It was the Navy that wanted the truth hidden. Et cetera, et cetera. Again, the Navy knew exactly what it was doing.

Right, Ron. knowing just how complicit each of the doctors were or weren't isn't really important because they very obviously had people above them who knew a lot more and clearly had more control.

that medicolegal summary just makes it quite clear that procedures were dashed to the ground, by whomever's hand. and he follows it with how an autopsy should have been done, procedure by procedure. it's really interesting.

Robert, Mark, et al, I wish you'd go try your hand at my Exercise in Reason which is in reality a test written by this doctor guy in the early 70s to point out mistakes that are easily made in the areas of reason and logic.

Only 4% of the people he tested back then got it right, and it looks simple as hell.

(it's a matter of reading the problem correctly and understanding it correctly, which has not yet been done - well, by two people. ok, three. i missed it, too. but i know the answer now and it's fascinating to see how differenly people interpret some pretty simple instructions...)

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer?

Damn, i can see why Robert called you Princess.

in fact, it has been answered correctly within the very thread. I have promised to stay out of it for a minute because - and you may not like this idea - I was enjoying learning about the way people think, and i happen to think that SOME people enjoy a challenge for the sake of the challenge, even IF they are not able to solve it themselves, without finding an excuse for their inability to solve it.

i missed it. it wasn't because it's a trick question. it's because i didn't try hard enough. once i saw the answer, i saw my mistake, and I LEARNED FROM IT.

i was also proud that i did not need an excuse to justify my missing it.

it's not a trick question, Ken. You're just wrong. there's nothing wrong with being wrong. I've been wrong before, and I lived through it. The odds are in my favor of being wrong again. I will learn from it.

i learned from this exercise. and i learn from you...

ok, well, you're going to have to show me how it's not a trick question. If you have to have the answer to one question before you can even ask the 2nd and then you ask the 2nd without the answer to the first. I'll have to see that. I don't believe that i won't disagree with the answer if the answer is not one. I know you're going to say you have to turn the card with the number 4 on it to see if there is a vowel on the back. but you can't do that until you know that there 'is' a vowel on the front of the card. Anyhow, I can already tell I'm not going to agree with your answer because I can already tell you have the wrong answer.

well, princess, you'll have to complain to A) the person who got the answer correct in the thread, and the creators of the puzzle. it's not MY answer because, as I said, I didn't create the damn thing.

Wikipedia:

"The _______ selection task (or four-card problem) is a logic puzzle devised by _______ _______ in 1966, (I know I said the early 70s because the website i first found this on said so). It is one of the most famous tasks in the study of deductive reasoning. An example of the puzzle is:

You are shown a set of four cards placed on a table, each of which has a number on one side and a colored patch on the other side. The visible faces of the cards show 3, 8, red and brown. Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows an even number on one face, then its opposite face is red?

A response that identifies a card that need not be inverted, or that fails to identify a card that needs to be inverted, is incorrect. The original task dealt with numbers (even, odd) and letters (vowels, consonants)."

Now, Ken, do you care to maintain that it is MY answer and that I got it wrong? (and NO, that's NOT what i'm going to say - you're pretty much wrong in the entire statement above.)

Robert, Mark, et al, I wish you'd go try your hand at my Exercise in Reason which is in reality a test written by this doctor guy in the early 70s to point out mistakes that are easily made in the areas of reason and logic.

Only 4% of the people he tested back then got it right, and it looks simple as hell.

(it's a matter of reading the problem correctly and understanding it correctly, which has not yet been done - well, by two people. ok, three. i missed it, too. but i know the answer now and it's fascinating to see how differenly people interpret some pretty simple instructions...)

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer?

Damn, i can see why Robert called you Princess.

in fact, it has been answered correctly within the very thread. I have promised to stay out of it for a minute because - and you may not like this idea - I was enjoying learning about the way people think, and i happen to think that SOME people enjoy a challenge for the sake of the challenge, even IF they are not able to solve it themselves, without finding an excuse for their inability to solve it.

i missed it. it wasn't because it's a trick question. it's because i didn't try hard enough. once i saw the answer, i saw my mistake, and I LEARNED FROM IT.

i was also proud that i did not need an excuse to justify my missing it.

it's not a trick question, Ken. You're just wrong. there's nothing wrong with being wrong. I've been wrong before, and I lived through it. The odds are in my favor of being wrong again. I will learn from it.

i learned from this exercise. and i learn from you...

In his book, Who Killed Kennedy? (May, 1964) Thomas G. Buchanan suggests that J. D. Tippit was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. Buchanan, who was living in France at the time (he had lost his job with the Washington Evening Star in 1948 because of his alleged membership of the American Communist Party). He claims that there were several stories circulating in Europe at this time that Tippit was a member of the team that was involved in the plot against Kennedy.

Buchanan refers to an article written by Serge Groussard in L’Aurore (a right-wing newspaper which had supported the O.A.S. during the Algerian War). Groussard claimed he had received information that Tippit had been employed to help a man escape from Dallas. He was not told what crime the man had done (or was about to do). When he realised that the man who he was supposed to help had killed JFK, he changed his mind and tried to arrest Oswald. When Oswald realized what was happening, he killed Tippit.

Buchanan rejects this theory. However, he does believe that Tippit was involved in the conspiracy. He puts forward the following points to support this view:

(1) The physical description of Oswald giving out by the Dallas Police was not accurate enough for Tippit to have recognized him. What is more, as Oswald had already returned home to change, the description of his clothing was no longer valid.

(2) Tippit was alone at the time that he apprehended Oswald. According to Buchanan: “Standing orders for police in Dallas, as in other cities, are that radio cars of the type Tippit was driving must have two policemen in them.”

(3) Tippit was not in the sector of Dallas where he had been assigned the day before. He should “have been in downtown Dallas at the time he intercepted Oswald half way between Oswald’s room and Ruby’s”.

(4) Tippit violated police procedure by “failing to make use of the radio beside him to notify his fellow-officers that he was stopping to question a suspect in the Kennedy assassination”.

(5) According to one witness “Oswald smiled at Tippit when he saw him, ambled over to the scout car, and they had an amicable conversation for almost a minute. Tippit staying in the car and Oswald standing in the street beside his rolled-down car window.”

(6) Buchanan claimed that Eva Grant had told reporters that Ruby and Oswald “were like brothers”.

What do members think? Was Tippit involved in the conspiracy? If so, what was his role?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what was his role?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unwitting accomplice! (polite version)

Dimwit accomplice! (more factual)

The psych profile of Tippit was one in which it was basically stated that he was pretty well devoid of independent thought capability.

Does this sound like someone who could keep a covert assassination plan from getting out?

From all indications, it would appear that Tippit was actually looking/searching for LHO.

That LHO was ultimately captured in the Texas Theatre, and the fact that J. D. Tippit had previously worked there in an off-duty security capacity, is just a tad too much of a coincidence.

--------------------------

Mr. BREWER - He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before

---------------------------

And, provided that Johnny Calvin Brewer was correct, this was not LHO's first stroll along West Jefferson.

And in these regards, one must give serious consideration that J.D. Tippit was, in the words of Muhammed Ali, "rope-a-dope" who was involved with LHO, but actually did not even know what it was that he and/or LHO were actually involved with.

"Poor Dumb Cop" was reportedly the quote, was it not?

John, in the Buchanan thread I said I was an agnostic re whether Tippit was part of the conspiracy or not. I am much less so if Ruby knew Tippit well. (Of course, I understand Ruby knew, casually, many members of the Dallas police force.)

I suspect Ruby was involved in the conspiracy before the assassination. I suggest he may have used his contacts on the police force to obtain police uniforms for the conspirators.

Much of the "Ruby knew Tippit" confusion appears to comes from another officer by the name of Tippit of whom Ruby quite apparantly knew.

Fequently giving "birthday" type parties for members of the police force in order to keep his options open, Ruby reportedly gave such a party for an officer named Tippit when he was associated with the other nightclub.

CRS affects the recolletion of this, however it seems as if the other "Tippit" was a detective/plain clothes version.

devoid of independent thought capability. God that's funny.

Does this sound like someone who could keep a covert assassination plan from getting out?

Doesn't even sound like someone who'd be entrusted with such a plan, or even a plan to go buy some bullets.