Glenn Nall

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.

so, do these follow? - E HAS an EVEN NUMBER on the flip side - K CAN HAVE an EVEN NUMBER on the flip side - 4 ...? - 7 ...? Turning E proves an EVEN number. Turning K proves... Only 1 of those cards can be used to prove your statement. Turn over the E and if it has an even number, then it's proved. turning over the other 3 prove nothing. You can't assume anything about any of the cards, you can only use what you see. you only see one vowel, that's the only card you can consider a vowel. You can't hunt for a hidden definition to make a vowel. Correct answer is 1. Note: I answered this before I saw your answer. MY Bad, if it appears that i wrote the answer. those were prompts to encourage participation. I corrected the wording. [edited] - I hid my response cause i want to see, if any, what kind of discussion this could prompt. The discussion would be more interesting than the solution. big time.

this is what follows the description of the problem: "More than half of people questioned said * * * * * * [wrong answer]. [...] Only 4% said * * * * * * [the correct answer]. [...] " it said more, but i've hidden the giveaways. Most people missed this. 4% got it right.

this is a reasoning test designed by a psychologist in the 70's in order to exemplify the trap that people can get themselves into so easily. the test is a bit tricky, but it IS based on the standard definitions that most people are familiar with. the 5, not 7, vowels, and the numbers are numbers - the problem is presented at face value, and nothing extra should be read into it. It's simply a problem based on eliminating impossibilities and using reason to arrive at an answer. i'm a little disappointed that you feel i've ever given a reason to suspect i weasle or waffle on anything, that my definition of anything is other than what (most of) the rest of you seem to take as a given. where in these instructions does it even suggest a whole word is in play? (these are not my instructions. as i think i stated at the beginning, i've just pasted this in from its original webpage. I chose not to disclose the author so that no one would be tempted to just google the answer.) i posted this to provide a way of thinking about how we arrive at conclusions, and how we can make mistakes arriving at conclusions. if you think my aim is to be sneaky, i'd be honored if you could show me something i've done to suggest that this is my motive in here. i was trying to offer something constructive, relative and fun. i was not trying to start yet one more argument. P.S. How do YOU define "vowel", Jon? I truly didn't realize there were alternate definitions.

yeah, i know what 45's are - i really was just kidding. thanks

ok, so James now refuses to acknowledge my queries, even though he once respected my input, mainly because I disagreed with him. and they say that this JFK thing of ours isn't personal... Greg: what the hell is a 45? and what the hell is a B side? just kidding. i saw one once in a museum.

SO - do these statements follow? - E HAS an EVEN NUMBER on the flip side - K CAN HAVE an EVEN NUMBER on the flip side - 4 ...? - 7 ...? As has been established, turning E, a vowel, over proves an EVEN number is on the other side. What does turning K establish...? What does turning 4 establish...? What does turning 7 establish...? here's another way of looking at it: Each card has FOUR possibilities - a Vowel, a Consonant, an Even # or an Odd #. given ONLY that Vowel = Even, then what do we KNOW about the others? Consonant CAN = Even, Odd or Vowel Even CAN = Odd, Even, Consonant or Vowel Odd CAN = ... which one CANNOT = something...?

moved to Quote -

i remember whoever it was who described the search for the bullet emphasizing that they searched the body cavity, and that it took up much of the time in the lab... in context, i wonder how much time and consideration was given to the idea of a missile self-disappearing vs that of finding a missing one. AND if the testimony of the lengthy search is trustworthy. also, i was really wondering more about the opinions of present colleagues (if i may be so bold as to use that term here?) regarding this lengthy search described by this asst. i mean, if you get right down to it, if this description of this search made it into the WR, then wouldn't that pretty much prove a missing bullet, ergo a fourth bullet, ergo a conspiracy? the fact that the medical professionals freely admit a missing bullet in a professional capacity...? was the WC able to include this and whitewash it, as well?

out of curiosity, what of the story by the autopsy asst about them searching for HOURS for a bullet in Ks body which was never found...?

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)? OR (these are the same challenges, just worded a little differently): Which card(s) must you turn over in order to test the truth of the proposition that if a card shows a vowel on one face, then its opposite face is an EVEN number? Discuss it among yourselves...

please let me try again. so you ARE saying that the difference between the hole in Ks back and the placement of the hole in the jacket, as it would be worn normally, is 1/8"? AND that the hole in the jacket is BELOW where it would should have been in order to align with the hole in K? I don't know how the shirt came into this. i didn't ask about the shirt. PLEASE do not read anything into my questions. I'm NOT implying anything AT ALL. I'm JUST trying to understand what the given evidence is. these are yes or no questions. yes with an optional explanation (i'm going to regret that), or no with a clarification.

Being a devotee of the Internet as a means of quickly identifying Warren Commission, HSCA and ARRB Documents, I also will do searches on individuals whose names come up on the JFK Forum from time to time. While I do not have John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" I seem to constantly stumble upon material from it and references to it on other JFK Forums. My point is that some of the material referenced if accurate I think, has a place in JFK Research in general. My overall attitude in researching the assassination is that "nothing should be ruled out" when approaching possible "angles" to the assassination. But Armstrong's premise is even hard for me to swallow. Still I would like to mention that I have read portions of his stuff in other forums, which present IMO valid "leads." For example, On excerpt describes an Oswald impersonator with Ruby somewhere in the New Orleans area prior to November 22, 63, it mentions that this person who claimed to be Oswald had a tatoo on his left arm. I don't believe a JFK researcher should be guilty of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." One does not have to accept Armstrong's premise of a "Harvey and Lee" to utilize the information contained in his research that is credible. Anyone? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First off, there were in fact two (2) M. Oswald's. Margaret Oswald, who was the first wife of Robert E. Lee Oswald (Sr.), and who did not intitially change her name upon divorce from R.E. L. Oswald (Sr.) & Marguerite Oswald, who was the second wife of Robert E. Lee Oswald (Sr.) Secondly, a little known fact! It was not uncommon practice in the South, and especially in large cities such as New Orleans, where the proprietor actually knew the family, to issue two checks to a person who worked for them. 1 check in the person's name. 1 check in a minor child's name. This was done for a combination of reasons which included: 1. The employer could actually report a lower salary to the IRS for the actual worker, while in fact paying the worker a portion of their salary through the name of a dependent child. 2. Since the child was usually only a "part time" worker, certain tax advantages could be taken advantage of by reporting a portion of the actual workers income as having been earned by a dependent child. And, even if Income Taxes were withheld on the child, they would normally be all returned at the end of the tax year when a return was filed. 3. When "Worker's Compensation" laws came into effect, this arrangement was of benefit to the Employer as the worker was reportedly earning a considerably lower income than was truely the case. Therefore, that "contribution" made by the employer for any worker compensation insurance was lower, based on the reported lower salary of the employee. And, part-time employees were not required to be fully covered under worker's comp. 4. In maintaing a "low income", the worker could frequently qualify for various assistance programs such as the old "commodities" assistance which was given to low income families. Therefore, just because there may be indications of checks made out to Lee Harvey Oswald, when he was or was not there to collect and receive said monies, is not of itself full indication of some giant espionage game. Merely those games that people play in order to avoid giving some of their income to the IRS, as well as still qualifying for various federal subsidy programs. Tom I'm not averse to believing something as radical as 2 Ms and even 2 LHOs - I'm open to its possibility. I also like to see documentation when it's available. when making a statement of fact that's a bit off the beaten path - "First off, there were in fact two (2) M. Oswald's." - , a casual citation goes a long way in lending the statement some credibility. I HAVE read some fairly curious stories about one M being in NY and another being out west, or in NO or something... it's hard to piece all that stuff together. (the story of one LHO applying for the job at the Dallas Employment Agency and a different LHO in the office once LHO was employed at TSBD IS intriguing...) anyway - what is there showing that there are 2 Ms?

Thanks for making my point. You assume (quite correctly) that most of the autopsy photos only show what the 'warren commission wanted to show. There is certainly a photo (or more) that shows the back wound. It is not 'near' the neck. I'm not sure that the shirt and jacket are more 'extant' than the photo is. Let me get this straight: the jacket was 'bunched up" an eighth of an inch? That much? Is there a rule concerning shirt and jacket collars that say they have to be 'aligned' with each other? Maybe one collar was just 1/8" lower than the other, unbunched. I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know. but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

Wait a minute...you think conspiracy in the murder of JFK is a "theory"? only in the sense that it has not been legally proven. of course i'm utterly convinced, but technically it is one of two theories, since, by definition, a theory is something that has not been proven in the strict sense of the word proven. sometimes I think the Ed Forum serves as a part-time dictionary.

Being a devotee of the Internet as a means of quickly identifying Warren Commission, HSCA and ARRB Documents, I also will do searches on individuals whose names come up on the JFK Forum from time to time. While I do not have John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" I seem to constantly stumble upon material from it and references to it on other JFK Forums. My point is that some of the material referenced if accurate I think, has a place in JFK Research in general. My overall attitude in researching the assassination is that "nothing should be ruled out" when approaching possible "angles" to the assassination. But Armstrong's premise is even hard for me to swallow. Still I would like to mention that I have read portions of his stuff in other forums, which present IMO valid "leads." For example, On excerpt describes an Oswald impersonator with Ruby somewhere in the New Orleans area prior to November 22, 63, it mentions that this person who claimed to be Oswald had a tatoo on his left arm. I don't believe a JFK researcher should be guilty of "throwing the baby out with the bath water." One does not have to accept Armstrong's premise of a "Harvey and Lee" to utilize the information contained in his research that is credible. Anyone? "Though Armstrong's premise is hard for me to swallow, my overall attitude in researching the assassination is that "nothing should be ruled out" when approaching possible "angles" to the assassination." I agree completely. "File (New York: Clarkson Potter, 1977), which concluded that one 'Oswald', the American Marine 'Oswald', went to the Soviet Union but another 'Oswald' came back in his place, a ringer being run by the Soviets, who shot the President." Just a thought: According to Jennifer Lake: A) Oswald indeed, especially in New Orleans, became closely involved with the flow of small arms and ammunition and there is speculative evidence that nuclear materials were moved by that flow. Key persons and agencies connected to the JFK assassination had direct and profitable activities in atomic industry. Even a reframing of the U.S. Public Health Service particle accelerator story given by Ed Haslam in Dr. Mary’s Monkey, has more ominous implications used to “recharge” or transform nuclear fuel in a spent or raw state. Jim Garrison: …”control was so careful that ammunition was kept far-flung in outlying areas. Dispersal was the rule… in New Orleans only small amounts were kept at Banister’s office at any one time.” If these munitions emitted a particular radioactive signature it would be wise to manage their storage in this way. On the Houma military base, which was guarded and active 24/7, perhaps it made no difference when the cache was militarily protected, but we are also to believe that the transfers were protected as a sanctioned trade under the watchful eyes of government operatives, even in the open on the streets of downtown New Orleans –why then would these munitions require dispersal and isolation? What made these munitions “unique” and who, with any firearms experience, would use the word “unique”? Were they variously labeled for purposes of special handling and destination routes? Was all the ‘cancer research’, including the disease cases of David Ferrie and Jack Ruby, more expressly intended for themselves as special handlers of carcinogenic cargo? C) Robert Oswald remarked on the physical changes in his brother Lee, returned from Russia at age 22, as having thinned wire-textured hair and a sallow complexion –very unlike the robustly youthful marine he had last seen in the fall of 1959. Signs of early aging, like LHO’s, are a common and predictable side-effect of radiation exposure. The black-and-white photo below on the right shows not just thinning hair but patches of scalp which can be confirmed in the video images of Oswald being taken through the Dallas PD hallway. just a thought...

Cliff. "either theory" being the Conspiracy Theory and the Lone Gunman Theory. that's two theories.

That's not Boris Pash. It's Dallas Secret Service SAIC Forrest Sorrels. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3869&page=2 --Tommy Though I don't doubt you at all, Thomas - interestingly that pic and caption is followed by this statement a little later in the article: The image of Boris Pash and LBJ together in Dallas on 11-22-63 at the Parkland suggests the immediacy of an Oswald problem. The above link to Jim Fetzer’s Real Deal program features a description of what happened to the next famous patient brought to the hospital: [description of LBJs phone call to Crenshaw]...

that's kinda my thoughts, too. not sure what the complexity is, though i do trust the others that there seems to be a problem with the angle of the back hole and the throat hole, and whether or not it's an exit would. I'm not even on the same planet as a LNer, but i'm still not convinced whether it's an exit or entrance wound (please no preaching!!!!). what you're saying is right - i'm not sure why the coat is necessary to prove where the hole is. again, the others know more than i do, so...

OCD hadn't been invented in '63? Had it? no, and neither had homosexuality. and witchcraft. and HepC. and internet forums. i was speaking of a more current exhibition of relentlessness.

In order to rebut my assertion the collar was near the level of the bottom tip of the mastoid, Cliff posted a photo showing the collar an inch or two below the mastoid. Well, he knew this wasn't the last photo taken before Kennedy was shot in which the level of the collar was on display, Betzner 3 (Z186) shows otherwise. So does the Towner film. As you can see, I use this image to demonstrate that even IF the jacket sticks straight out from behind the mastoid, as claimed by some, that this still leaves far too much material to lift the bullet entrance on the clothing to the blue line, the level of entrance pushed by the Warren Commission, McAdams, and Bugliosi, etc. Pat Speer uses a lateral view optical illusion to make JFK's clothing collars line up with the mastoid process. Posterior views are superior, and all of them show JFK's clothing collars in a normal position on JFK's neck. Pat's claims indicate the base of JFK's neck was nearly 4 inches below the bottom of his collar. This is beyond absurd, and the implied attack on the back wound witnesses is despicable in my book. here's the thing on this particular photo - and i'm not even sure who is saying which about the bullet holes in the jacket, so what i'm saying is objective - it's what i see: in the right pic, Ks shoulders are clearly raised higher than in the left, and hunched forward a bit - this doesn't so much raise the collar, but it DOES raise the part of the jacket just below the collar, which would pull the jacket beneath that upward, of course. and that's the part of the jacket that sustained the hole. right? so it's not really about the collar, it's about the coat just below the collar bunching up. i'm not saying that this bunching is enough to resolve either theory - just that the collar isn't so much the issue as the part between the shoulders is. also what is at issue is one human wanting another human to be wrong to a much larger extent than is "normal." i'd say that's an issue, too.

Pat, i would so ignore that OCD stuff. how can anyone STILL be stuck on you? did you say you think JFK was in on it or something? or maybe Jackie...? that's MY position, and you can't have it. I THINK JFK was in on it. and i have photographic evidence (evidence of DVP-type standards, so you know it's good evidence!). just wait...

the people who erroneously try to say that JFK is irrelevant today is completely different than discussing today's relevant politics in order to get to the politics of 50+ years ago. because Obama spoke of JFK three times only means that it IS relevant today. GREAT. it is more relevant than most people know. I walk and live amongst the homeless of Atlanta and am reminded hourly how relevant it is today. Mark's point is that you can't use today's politics, or even Carter, to GO backward and understand/solve the politics that killed JFK.

it has always looked to me that any of the fragments were minuscule compared to a full-width bullet like the one in the x-ray, or 399... how come?

that being said, that my approach to research is somewhat Occamistic (it's MY word!, but you can borrow it), if signs DO point outside of the comfort zone, i'm more than happy to go with them. Mantik sounds legitimate - i was confused by the exact alignment of the whole bullet and the fragment that he suggested... but i recognize that people tend to look for complexities when they're not even needed or called for.