Glenn Nall

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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? 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.

Yet there's no detail there, Glenn. Some sort of a lie at some level for some reason? Regards, --Paul Trejo i simply stated that "there are other things that make me think" that she was just as capable of lying about him as she was telling the truth. i simply stated that there are things that lead ME to that opinion. Saying "at some level" for "some reason" was to intentionally leave it a broad possibility, that she may have lied about A LOT, or she may have lied only about A FEW things. Like the bathroom incident. it seems, with all the contradictions, that it's a lie. That Marina told. and that she may have lied for the reason that she was FORCED to, or for the reason that she WANTED to. The two day hostage meeting with her and a coupla crony lawyers and a coupla FEEBS leads me to believe that she was force-fed some untruths which was regurgitated later. i'm certain that I'm not the only one in this forum who has read the same indications. if i am, i'm more than happy to provide some "detail." since it is that you've apparently not read these things, would you like some detail to support my opinion? I try very hard to have material that supports what inane comments your opinion may consider I've made. it's unusual that i'll say something you find contrary without having some evidentiary support. Much like most of the other people with whom you disagree... My experience is that many of the people in here actually found their theories on something substantial, and not Stephen King's Greatest Hits.

no problem with speculation when it's announced as such. it's what gets the wheels turning sometimes. just curious - why the number 24? just something random and arbitrary...?

this is funny - is the implication then that Liberals, too, grow up and become Conservatives? I know I did.

Bill, may I ask -- why would Marina fink on Lee in the story of the shots at General Walker in the first place? (1) Those of us who believe that Marina's sworn testimony is historical fact often agree that her motive was simply to tell the truth. Marina Oswald made it clear that she took one Backyard Photograph, period, and she had no explanation for the various poses. She saw Lee's photo album of resigned General Walker's home architecture and neighborhood, with maps. She said she got a handwritten Russian note from Lee himself with his instructions for her in case he was arrested. She said Lee Harvey Oswald confessed to her about the Walker shooting, giving his side of the story. In light of all these revelations by Marina in early December 1963, the Warren Commission (WC) had no choice but commence questioning in 1964 of perhaps a dozen witnesses about the shots at General Walker back in April 1963. (2) Those who disbelieve Marina Oswald often agree that her motive was to testify as the WC instructed her. But why in the world would the WC instruct Marina to lie about the Walker shooting? Remember; if Marina was following WC instructions, then Marina couldn't have been their reason for raising the issue. Three questions immediately arise: (i) Why would the WC strain to link the April shooting at General Walker with the November JFK assassination, if it wasn't true? (ii) Why would somebody in Marina's position agree to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the shots at General Walker, if she knew it wasn't true? (iii) Why would several WC witnesses agree to link Lee Harvey Oswald with the shots at General Walker, if they knew it wasn't true (especially if they opposed Edwin Walker)? IMHO, it makes little sense to propose any conspiracy to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the shots at General Walker. What motive could one offer? Either their testimony was truthfully told (e.g. these witnesses believed a publicity stunt was the real thing) or one must invent some artificial motive. Regards, --Paul Trejo Richard Bartholomew writes that Marina's next (and current?) husband Porter was an employee of a company (can't remember its name) connected to DH Byrd - the CIA connected radio company i think it was - and was bragging about his affair with Marina just before the assassination and then abruptly quit his job right after the murder stating that he and Marina were off to get married. there are other things that make me think Marina lied about Lee at some level and for some reason. Coercion, whatever... hell they hadn't even lived together for quite a while. I don't see a boatload of undying loyalty there in the aura of the assassination of the US President.

I'm cutting myself off now. have phun...

so, right - if you turn E over and behold there's a VOWEL, so far the statement is true... and that does not solve the problem...

you are exactly right. and you're missing what i missed. in fact, you're even closer than i was to it... (wow.) right. that's what i meant by "all four" - i think of the possibilities as ONLY 4 different entities - vowels, cons., evens and odds. (since we can see a K and a 7, and by implying that a vowel or an even is ONLY a possibility, then we know that consonants and odds are in play)

Was this addressed towards MY post? rereading your initial offering, you almost nailed it, but blew past a possibility without seeing it. i pledged not to help, but Ken was bitching that the test is flawed, so i was too weak not to respond. the test is not flawed. it's really simple. it's just not easy... i'll provide the link to the original study once it's done...

the challenge, in my opinion, is reading the evidence that is given ONLY for what it is, and not adding to it, which apparently is what humans are prone to do, since so few people got this right. reading the evidence that is given ONLY for what it is - an example, (and I'm sorry, Ken, but it works as an example) - Ken took from the GIVEN to mean - not that there will be an even number on the other side of a vowel - but that he could only turn over a card with a vowel on it. I'm not faulting him, i'm fascinated that one person reads that so differently than another. going ONLY where the evidence takes you, and no further... and now Pat has come up with something quite unique...

Was this addressed towards MY post? no no, sorry - i wrote that before you had posted, when it was only Ken complaining, i mean playing... that was for him.

thanks Mark. If the point of the exercise is to prove the statement - right -> "WHAT are the minimum cards that need to be turned over to prove that the conditional statement is true" what we KNOW is: If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side. --OR-- if VOWEL - then EVEN - if CONSONANT - then ... any of the four (vowel, consonant, even, odd)... right? none are excluded...? if EVEN, then ... any of the four... right? are any excluded? if ODD, then ... any of the four? are any excluded...? you're not off track. it's not as easy as we think. this is why it's easy - for some - to say, "if there are shells on the floor, and the gun is registered to BOB, then Bob HAD TO have shot the gun."

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...

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. . golly i'm glad you asked then. not what i meant at all. he's stating that the Medical Procedure is quite clear and that the doctors didn't follow it for whatever reason - i didn't take it that he was excusing them; on the contrary, i took him to mean that they were negligent for one of perhaps a few reasons. FBI coercion, corruption themselves, whatever... I agree with your last statement; yep, the upper officers knew just what was going on. however they knew, they knew. and btw, i'm prior Navy - yet i'm more than happy to throw the guilty under the bus, Navy or not. I'll go get a pullquote from the Medicolegal doc...

when I watch the film it appears to me that they learned that art anyway.

Steven I appreciate these article references - i found some good stuff i didn't know (there's a LOT of good stuff I don't know) and it has been really useful in some little material i'm putting together. This Jennifer Lake chick/woman is one helluva researcher (and writer). She must eat ramen noodles just to stay alive - she can't have time to actually work for a living with all this material she comes up with... thanks

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. )

"We are talking about wounds that received no legitimate autopsy. The procedure at Bethesda was a disgraceful charade," 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.

Ken, I don't understand why you think i'm trying to twist things. I haven't changed a thing, i've tried to clarify the directions because you misunderstood the 'original intent,' i was thinking perhaps my words were not clear. but really, they are not my words - i copied these STRAIGHT from the website from whence they came. and i won't let myself succumb to offering help. I can see where the mistakes are made - IF they're being made. and i'm using the plural 'mistakes' so as to not imply any one person. perhaps someone else will read this and point out what they think is illogic...

reading these tells me where mistakes are made in the thinking process. so fascinating. i've never looked at one of these from this end. when a proper explanation is made here, you'll be able to go through this and see what constitutes simple logic - getting from one point to another accurately - and how mistakes are easily made without even being noticed... (note i did not say "when a correct answer is reached...")

this deserves emphasis. hmmm > "So then he had the X-rays made when, according to the X-Ray techs, the lungs and internal organs had already been removed." new to me. is this at all verifiable? I've read the testimony of the organs being removed, and of Finck partially probing the wound; if the time of these events are documented, that's quite a hard thing to defend, even though the WC can defend anything and get away with it, it's still some pretty good ammunition. and this, too: just how established is it that the report and the x-rays were not meant to be published?

oops

"I said a hole in the shirt doesn't prove he was shot, you say it does." these proofs require supporting evidence. if Bill is KNOWN to have put on a shirt with no holes in it, a gunshot is heard and when the shirt is removed it contains a bullethole, then that's just about concrete proof Bill will also have a bullet hole in him. IF those things cannot be established, then the shirt is not proof - now, it may be highly suggestive of a bullet hole in Bill, but in and of itself it does not, what's the word... it is not absolute proof that he was shot. and i'm thinking in this forum, when the word proof is used that it means and only means incontrovertibly established, and not strongly suggestive. i bet this is where much disagreement lies, in the understanding of this word as it's used in this forum.

i'd much rather read his than yours. no offense.

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...