John Iacoletti

She said she saw him out of the kitchen window as he was crossing the street towards their house.

In Frazier's testimony, he said that the package "would be around two feet, give and take a few inches."

Andrej, can you explain why Oswald being prayer man necessarily excludes the possibility that Oswald wore CE 150 to work?

And in yet another strange "coincidence", the bullets weren't "found on Oswald" until around the time the Davis shells "turned up". Too bad that the shells that turned up were 2 Remingtons and 2 Winchesters, but the slugs removed from Tippit were 3 Winchesters and 1 Remington. Oops!

I've read it many times. It's required reading which illustrates all the shenanigans that went on with the evidence. Very interesting. Where the heck is McDonald? These reports were all done 8 or 9 days later. Plenty of time to coordinate their stories about what went on in the theater.

And none of these initials were even put on until a couple of hours later when Gerald Hill pulled a gun out of his pocket at the station and they all initialed it. And why did Bentley initial it at all? Was the gun ever even in his possession?

The only thing that really tells you is that it was just accepted by many authors as a given without any scrutiny. Every assumption made in this case merits scrutiny.

He'll fumble it again before too long.

I think it says "Mrs.".

...but Oswald doesn't have a grandson named Alec Richmond. Or is he a "secret love child" too?

There's no way Beto would beat John Cornyn. Everybody hates Ted Cruz and Ted Cruz still won.

It’s not at all clear that Leavelle is “meeting with” this woman. They are just sitting there and not interacting.

But my point is, there is no legitimate reason to think that either one of them is Jeraldean Reid. It doesn’t look much like her at all. We have a 1930 school yearbook photo of her and a 1967 snapshot for comparison purposes.

But the footage of the woman sitting next to Leavelle (they don’t appear to be interacting, btw) was taken on Sunday. They are talking about Oswald being shot immediately before this sequence.

Why would anybody think that this woman is Mrs Reid?

You don't need his permission -- he doesn't own it.

I'm thinking the woman on the far left of the Christmas photo who looks kinda pregnant might be Carolyn Arnold. There are several assumptions in Sandy's argument about Calvery though: 1. That watching the motorcade together means standing shoulder to shoulder in a row (they all said they were about halfway between Houston and the Triple underpass, BTW). 2. That seeing no other "woman in white" in known footage must mean that there was only one in Dealey Plaza. 3. That woman-in-white necessarily continued to accompany tall-and-wide woman after leaving the Elm street curb. 4. That pulling on somebody's arm (if that's really happening) means that she is your companion.

Sorry if I’m beating a dead horse here, but I’ve been told by an unreliable source that Sandy Larsen once posted two images showing that “plaid bars” on Lovelady's shirt were a perfect match with the shirt of the man walking up the Elm extension. Is that accurate?

Classmates.com also shows my Sharon's married name to be Nelson.

I found Linda's Sharon in the 1960 Thomas Jefferson High School yearbook. Unless she graduated at 16 (which is possible - I did!), my Sharon at Adamson High would make more sense. She would have been 18 in 1962.

Our Sharon is Sharon Ann.

Where did you get the high school photo of Simmons? This is the one I found. 1962 Adamson High.

Please explain how this is wrong. The proposition is "If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side." If you turn the K over and it has a vowel on the other side, then this card has a vowel on one side and something other than an even number on the other side (a K). The proposition would be proved false. Edit: I see that Glenn corrected himself in a later post. It does change the answer if you stipulate that the cards must have a letter on one side and a number on the other.

The other side of the K card could be a vowel. There's nothing in Glenn's problem statement that excludes this possibility. If there is a vowel on the other side of the K card, then the proposition is proved false. You cannot discard the K card.

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. It most certainly matters if you state beforehand that each card must have a letter on one side and a number on the other. If that is not a given, then you have to turn over the K because it might have a vowel on the other side. If that is a given then you only have to turn over the E and the 7. Also, some people are making the mistake of thinking that the puzzle makes a distinction between the top side and the bottom side. The postulate is "if a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side", it doesn't say "if a card has a vowel on the top side, then it has an even number on the bottom side". So you can't just check the card that has a vowel on the top.