Glenn Nall
-
Posts
1,422 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Glenn Nall
-
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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 trapsA 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 consequentDenying 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 antecedentDenying 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 consequentThis 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 trapA classic trap was created some years ago;Four cards are laid out as below:
Given the condition: '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)?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...?
-
-
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 trapsA 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 consequentDenying 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 antecedentDenying 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 consequentThis 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 trapA 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?This is a major publishing event in the JFK assassination world. Parts of Armstrong's work has been on the Net and he's spoken at some of the big JFK conferences. His work-in-progress became spoken of as 'the John Armstrong research'; and finally we have the book, a self-published 1000 pages; plus a CD-Rom containing documents he cites. (I haven't even looked at the CD-Rom yet.) Since one reading of this (and some sections I merely skimmed), is all I have managed so far, and that is barely scratching the surface of 1000 pages, this is a
provisional report; first reactions.
This is a staggering piece of research, twelve years of it, and a lot of money spent in the process. Armstrong has interviewed people who haven't been interviewed since the Warren Commission - and many who have never been interviewed before. He has read official files no non-official had seen before him. Lots of new ground is broken here in all kinds of little subsections of the story. But it is far too long. If the text was copy-edited, he or she deserves a slap: the text is full of stupid little errors. The typesetting is eccentric: the text is covered in italicisation, bold and underlining. A potentially great 400 or 500 page book is buried in this behemoth. Or perhaps it shouldn't be thought of as a book, but more as research assembled in book form.
Armstrong does three things. First, he is offering a theory of the assassination. His minute - microscopic - analysis of key episodes in the case is punctuated by chunks of the ClA's coven activities in the 1950s and 60s: Armstrong wants us to
see what the Agency is known to have been doing while the Oswald story unfolded. But his thesis that the CIA killed JFK and framed Oswald fails for the same reason that previous versions of this have failed: no matter how plausible the idea, no matter how much detail we are given of other, analogous things the CIA was doing in the post-war years, Armstrong cannot show who was doing the shooting; and he cannot identify the CIA conspirators. The only plausible conspirators he offers are Jack Ruby and Lee, one of the two 'Oswalds' in the story. Both have connections to the ClA-funded anti-Castro operations; but that is all.
The second thing Armstrong does is show in great detail how the FBI 'edited' the evidence about the shooting. The FBI had all the evidence collected by the Dallas police sent to Washington and a lot of it didn't return. Armstrong thinks the editing was done to conceal evidence of the two 'Oswalds'; and while this looks very plausible, it is not conclusively demonstrated.
Thirdly, and centrally, Armstrong takes on the 'two Oswalds' question, which has been around since 1967. It arose first because there seemed to be someone pretending to be Oswald, apparently framing the other, genuine 'Oswald'. Professor
Richard Popkin detailed this first in his The Second Oswald (London: Andre Deutscn/ Sphere, 1967). Then 'Oswalds' with different heights and slightly different faces were noticed. A decade after Popkin, Michael Eddowes published The Oswald
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. In Alias Oswald (Manchester, Maine; GKG partners, 1985) Robert Cutler and W. R. Morris argued that the second 'Oswald', was not a Soviet spy but a US spy. In their analysis the switch from one 'Oswald' to the other took place in 1958 while Oswald was serving in the Marine Corps in Japan.
By dint of minute examination of the paper record and a lot of phone-bashing and travelling, Armstrong validates the Cutler-Morris thesis - there was a switch - and has tried to trace the life of the 'hidden' Oswald. He appears to have established the existence of an intelligence operation which began with two boys, of different heights, but who looked similar and who lived parallel lives. One, Harvey, was Russian-speaking, probably a refugee from Eastern Europe; the other, Lee, was an American.
It begins in the early WOs, some of the cooler years of the Cold War. US intelligence had no reliable information on the Soviet Union. (This was before U-2 over-flights and satellites.) Soviet nuclear arms, even the Soviet economy, were a mystery. All the agents sent in by CIA and MI6 had been turned or captured. How could they get agents in? One way was to send them in as defectors. There seems to have been a CIA programme of defectors - Armstrong discusses some of the others - in which, he hypothesises, there was an attempt at a better class of defection. Armstrong believes the CIA ran two real identities in parallel, merged them - Lee and Harvey became Lee Harvey - and switched them just before the apparent defection of the American 'Oswald', Lee. Thus the CIA would insert into the Soviet Union a defector, Harvey, with two outstanding characteristics: one, unknown to the Soviet authorities, he could speak Russian; two, if Soviet intelligence checked his biography, they would find the American 'Lee Oswald', not a 'legend' but a real life. If this seems elaborate, Armstrong reminds the reader of the Soviet use of 'illegals', and quotes the example of Molody, 'Gordon Lonsdale', who operated in the UK.
This hypothesised CIA plan entailed both boys being in the Marines at the same time. Armstrong shows reports and presents recollections of 'Oswald' in two places at the same time through secondary school and in the Marines. The two 'Oswalds' explains the mass of contradictory material about Oswald in the Marines: one who couldn't shoot; one who could: one who was an apparent Marxist and read Russian, the other who didn't: one who was outgoing and a brawler; the other a bookworm. The plan also meant two 'mothers of Oswald', two 'Marguerite Oswalds'. Here the programme didn't extend to two women who looked similar: one was tall and elegant and the other short and plain. If Armstrong is correct, and the evidence looks convincing on one reading, a woman spent nearly ten years, pretending to be 'Marguerite Oswald', following the real Marguerite round the country, taking a series' of xxxx-jobs to do so.
It should be noted that there is no evidence, either paper record or firsthand, that this scheme took place. Armstrong infers it from the evidence of the two 'Oswalds'. If this is true, Armstrong has uncovered the most elaborate intelligence operation (and done the greatest piece of espionage detective work) I have ever read about.
Passage from Lobster Magazine (Summer, 2004)
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?
-
I can not figure out why everyone tries to place the bullet hole in his back by where the collar of his jacket was/is or whether it was/was not bunched up.
Because it's the only extant physical evidence in the case.
Physical evidence is paramount in any murder case.
In this case, the holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the damage shown on the neck x-ray at C7/T1.
Why not just look at the photos of his back showing the bullet hole and just 'see' where it is?
What photo?
The BOH Fox 5 photo was improperly prepared, deficient in scientific value, lacking a chain of possession, and featuring a "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below, ergo forgery.
(If someone thinks/assumes the photos have been altered, then why would not the photo of his collar being bunched up be altered also?
Because the basic physical facts of the case prove the jacket was bunched up 1/8 of an inch.
Bullet hole in the shirt -- 4" below the bottom of the collar.
Bullet hole in the jacket -- 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.
So what?
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"?
-
Cliff.
"either theory" being the Conspiracy Theory and the Lone Gunman Theory.
that's two theories.
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?This is a major publishing event in the JFK assassination world. Parts of Armstrong's work has been on the Net and he's spoken at some of the big JFK conferences. His work-in-progress became spoken of as 'the John Armstrong research'; and finally we have the book, a self-published 1000 pages; plus a CD-Rom containing documents he cites. (I haven't even looked at the CD-Rom yet.) Since one reading of this (and some sections I merely skimmed), is all I have managed so far, and that is barely scratching the surface of 1000 pages, this is a
provisional report; first reactions.
This is a staggering piece of research, twelve years of it, and a lot of money spent in the process. Armstrong has interviewed people who haven't been interviewed since the Warren Commission - and many who have never been interviewed before. He has read official files no non-official had seen before him. Lots of new ground is broken here in all kinds of little subsections of the story. But it is far too long. If the text was copy-edited, he or she deserves a slap: the text is full of stupid little errors. The typesetting is eccentric: the text is covered in italicisation, bold and underlining. A potentially great 400 or 500 page book is buried in this behemoth. Or perhaps it shouldn't be thought of as a book, but more as research assembled in book form.
Armstrong does three things. First, he is offering a theory of the assassination. His minute - microscopic - analysis of key episodes in the case is punctuated by chunks of the ClA's coven activities in the 1950s and 60s: Armstrong wants us to
see what the Agency is known to have been doing while the Oswald story unfolded. But his thesis that the CIA killed JFK and framed Oswald fails for the same reason that previous versions of this have failed: no matter how plausible the idea, no matter how much detail we are given of other, analogous things the CIA was doing in the post-war years, Armstrong cannot show who was doing the shooting; and he cannot identify the CIA conspirators. The only plausible conspirators he offers are Jack Ruby and Lee, one of the two 'Oswalds' in the story. Both have connections to the ClA-funded anti-Castro operations; but that is all.
The second thing Armstrong does is show in great detail how the FBI 'edited' the evidence about the shooting. The FBI had all the evidence collected by the Dallas police sent to Washington and a lot of it didn't return. Armstrong thinks the editing was done to conceal evidence of the two 'Oswalds'; and while this looks very plausible, it is not conclusively demonstrated.
Thirdly, and centrally, Armstrong takes on the 'two Oswalds' question, which has been around since 1967. It arose first because there seemed to be someone pretending to be Oswald, apparently framing the other, genuine 'Oswald'. Professor
Richard Popkin detailed this first in his The Second Oswald (London: Andre Deutscn/ Sphere, 1967). Then 'Oswalds' with different heights and slightly different faces were noticed. A decade after Popkin, Michael Eddowes published The Oswald
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. In Alias Oswald (Manchester, Maine; GKG partners, 1985) Robert Cutler and W. R. Morris argued that the second 'Oswald', was not a Soviet spy but a US spy. In their analysis the switch from one 'Oswald' to the other took place in 1958 while Oswald was serving in the Marine Corps in Japan.
By dint of minute examination of the paper record and a lot of phone-bashing and travelling, Armstrong validates the Cutler-Morris thesis - there was a switch - and has tried to trace the life of the 'hidden' Oswald. He appears to have established the existence of an intelligence operation which began with two boys, of different heights, but who looked similar and who lived parallel lives. One, Harvey, was Russian-speaking, probably a refugee from Eastern Europe; the other, Lee, was an American.
It begins in the early WOs, some of the cooler years of the Cold War. US intelligence had no reliable information on the Soviet Union. (This was before U-2 over-flights and satellites.) Soviet nuclear arms, even the Soviet economy, were a mystery. All the agents sent in by CIA and MI6 had been turned or captured. How could they get agents in? One way was to send them in as defectors. There seems to have been a CIA programme of defectors - Armstrong discusses some of the others - in which, he hypothesises, there was an attempt at a better class of defection. Armstrong believes the CIA ran two real identities in parallel, merged them - Lee and Harvey became Lee Harvey - and switched them just before the apparent defection of the American 'Oswald', Lee. Thus the CIA would insert into the Soviet Union a defector, Harvey, with two outstanding characteristics: one, unknown to the Soviet authorities, he could speak Russian; two, if Soviet intelligence checked his biography, they would find the American 'Lee Oswald', not a 'legend' but a real life. If this seems elaborate, Armstrong reminds the reader of the Soviet use of 'illegals', and quotes the example of Molody, 'Gordon Lonsdale', who operated in the UK.
This hypothesised CIA plan entailed both boys being in the Marines at the same time. Armstrong shows reports and presents recollections of 'Oswald' in two places at the same time through secondary school and in the Marines. The two 'Oswalds' explains the mass of contradictory material about Oswald in the Marines: one who couldn't shoot; one who could: one who was an apparent Marxist and read Russian, the other who didn't: one who was outgoing and a brawler; the other a bookworm. The plan also meant two 'mothers of Oswald', two 'Marguerite Oswalds'. Here the programme didn't extend to two women who looked similar: one was tall and elegant and the other short and plain. If Armstrong is correct, and the evidence looks convincing on one reading, a woman spent nearly ten years, pretending to be 'Marguerite Oswald', following the real Marguerite round the country, taking a series' of xxxx-jobs to do so.
It should be noted that there is no evidence, either paper record or firsthand, that this scheme took place. Armstrong infers it from the evidence of the two 'Oswalds'. If this is true, Armstrong has uncovered the most elaborate intelligence operation (and done the greatest piece of espionage detective work) I have ever read about.
Passage from Lobster Magazine (Summer, 2004)
"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.
-
[...]
Pash with LBJ at Parkland Hospital -- Gaal[...]
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...
-
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...
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.
-
"3. I don't think Kennedy wore his clothing up at his ears, and you know it. As stated, the top of his collar approaches the mastoid process. The hole was 14 cm below the top of the collar. The wound was measured at 14 cm below the mastoid. It all adds up, and supports the accuracy of the face sheet, which shows a wound at T-1 equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip, exactly as described at autopsy."
Pat, that is one of the more ridiculous things you have ever written, and, from my viewpoint, you have written a lot of ridiculous things.
The mastoid process is nowhere near the top of the collar, and 14 cm. down from the mastoid process is nowhere near 14 cm. down from the top of the collar. Period.
Now go write one of your thousand word posts to baffle with BS all the unenlightened lurkers. Isn't this the LN way?
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.
-
Can I ask a question:
How much bigger would the 6.5 mm fragment be than any other fragment recovered?
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.
-
"...that 'a bullet fired from the right front...tangentially struck the top right portion of JFK's skull...with the bulk of the bullet being deflected upward out of the skull...leaving the trail of fine fragments' seen on JFK's lateral skull X-ray."
i like this, in keeping with my preference to not complicate, i don't see a need to create or imagine a phony bullet and phony autopsy x-ray when a more realistic scenario that still explains the head wounds and eyewitness testimony works just fine.
what confounds me is that Wecht finds obvious evidence of a conspiracy while Baden, another of one of the world's finest, or at least most renowned, Forensic Examiners, finds the opposite (they oppose each other often, i think, in fact). Lee, the other one (from OJ fame) finds a conspiracy, too, if i'm not mistaken.
Is Baden still on the dark side?
Conditional Reasoning, Skills in Deduction & Forming Proper Conclusions in this JFK Thing of Ours
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Glenn Nall
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.