10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)

[Robert Prudhomme]

From Pat Speer:

"P.S. If you think it ridiculous that a rifle bullet would not transit beyond the outer layers of the skin, perhaps you should consider the alternative. In your scenario, if I'm not mistaken, you believe that three doctors inspected the body of the most famous patient they would ever see, and found the entrance of a high-velocity bullet on his back flesh, but couldn't find any entrance beyond the flesh. Now, do you know how ridiculous this is? I've read dozens and dozens of books and articles on gunshot wounds, and this just does not happen. I mean, I've yet to find a single case study in which doctors valiantly tried to probe a high-velocity torso wound, but couldn't find any entrance into the body. Have you?"

I'll go one better than that, Pat. Not only did those three doctors hide the true nature of the back wound with the "short shot" and "shallow back wound" fairy tale, they also lied about a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head.

P.S.

I've also read many medical papers, and the majority of doctors will not try to probe bullet tracks for two reasons.

1. Tissue has a tendency to swell and close behind a bullet track, closing off the track.

2. Probes tend to make their own track if used too aggressively.

P.P.S.

Don't you dare get snarky with me and start making cracks about me being a self-appointed ballistics expert. I have likely forgotten more about ballistics than you will ever know. The reality of this situation is that a bullet travelling slowly enough to only penetrate an inch in flesh never would have found its target in the first place, for the reasons I have already outlined.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Kenneth Drew]

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.

[Cliff Varnell]

Will this one do? Cliff

This is the Fox 5 "Back of the Head" autopsy photo.

The upper artifact is considered the "wound."

It aligns with T1.

It's a fugazi. There's no evidence that John Kennedy is the subject of this photo.

No chain of possession.

Not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol.

The "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

Fugazi, and I ain't talkin' the band.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

From Pat Speer:

"P.S. If you think it ridiculous that a rifle bullet would not transit beyond the outer layers of the skin, perhaps you should consider the alternative. In your scenario, if I'm not mistaken, you believe that three doctors inspected the body of the most famous patient they would ever see, and found the entrance of a high-velocity bullet on his back flesh, but couldn't find any entrance beyond the flesh. Now, do you know how ridiculous this is? I've read dozens and dozens of books and articles on gunshot wounds, and this just does not happen. I mean, I've yet to find a single case study in which doctors valiantly tried to probe a high-velocity torso wound, but couldn't find any entrance into the body. Have you?"

I'll go one better than that, Pat. Not only did those three doctors hide the true nature of the back wound with the "short shot" and "shallow back wound" fairy tale, they also lied about a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head.

P.S.

I've also read many medical papers, and the majority of doctors will not try to probe bullet tracks for two reasons.

1. Tissue has a tendency to swell and close behind a bullet track, closing off the track.

2. Probes tend to make their own track if used too aggressively.

P.P.S.

Don't you dare get snarky with me and start making cracks about me being a self-appointed ballistics expert. I have likely forgotten more about ballistics than you will ever know. The reality of this situation is that a bullet travelling slowly enough to only penetrate an inch in flesh never would have found its target in the first place, for the reasons I have already outlined.

Uhh, sorry, Robert. Dead tissue doesn't bruise or swell, and pathologists do indeed insert metal probes from entrance to exit, and take pictures of the these probes within the body. Here is what the HSCA FPP had to say about Humes' inability to probe the back wound:

"The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce false tracks and misinformation."

Note that they don't criticize them for trying to probe the wound, or offer up any silliness about the track being closed off. No, they propose that the president's corpse stiffened up in such a way that the path through his body was twisted, and was not easily probed. They make it clear, moreover, that they believe they could have successfully probed the body, if only they'd manipulated his body into the position he was in when shot.

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Will this one do? Cliff

This is the Fox 5 "Back of the Head" autopsy photo.

The upper artifact is considered the "wound."

It aligns with T1.

It's a fugazi. There's no evidence that John Kennedy is the subject of this photo.

PAT: Except for the fact that those taking the picture and present at the autopsy ID'ed this as Kennedy, and the stains on the neck match up with the photos taken from the front which have been identified as photos of Kennedy, and the scars on the back are in the same location as the scars on Kennedy's back. Hmmm...

No chain of possession.

Not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol.

PAT: This is a total red herring. There is no history whatsoever of autopsy protocols signed by autopsy doctors and claimed by those doctors to be authentic records of their findings being rejected by a court of law. I have a book on autopsies, Cliff, in which the autopsy protocols of many famous people are published. Kennedy's autopsy was more thorough than most leading up to that time.

The "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

PAT: This is consistent with a shot from above's hitting the back at shallower angle than the forward slope of the shoulder plus the forward lean of the body.

Fugazi, and I ain't talkin' the band.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Will this one do? Cliff

This is the Fox 5 "Back of the Head" autopsy photo.

The upper artifact is considered the "wound."

It aligns with T1.

It's a fugazi. There's no evidence that John Kennedy is the subject of this photo.

PAT: Except for the fact that those taking the picture and present at the autopsy ID'ed this as Kennedy, and the stains on the neck match up with the photos taken from the front which have been identified as photos of Kennedy, and the scars on the back are in the same location as the scars on Kennedy's back. Hmmm...

So witness coercion couldn't happen and composite photos don't exist?

Lack of ID violates proper autopsy protocol.

No chain of possession.

No comment?

No comment!

Not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol.

PAT: This is a total red herring. There is no history whatsoever of autopsy protocols signed by autopsy doctors and claimed by those doctors to be authentic records of their findings being rejected by a court of law. I have a book on autopsies, Cliff, in which the autopsy protocols of many famous people are published. Kennedy's autopsy was more thorough than most leading up to that time.

You're promoting improperly prepared evidence over properly prepared evidence as a convenience to your own research.

The "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

PAT: This is consistent with a shot from above's hitting the back at shallower angle than the forward slope of the shoulder plus the forward lean of the body.

Nonsense.

When are you going to show us how the jacket dropped into an elevated position?

Fugazi, and I ain't talkin' the band.

[Pat Speer]

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.

Why do you constantly make stuff up, Cliff? Infallible? Where do you get this?

Mark is absolutely correct in that when I first started researching the case I was unnerved by the fact most every CT seemed to agree with "officialdom's" position that the official evidence suggested Oswald's sole guilt. And that these CTs then took from this that this evidence must be fake. Well, this unnerved me because I realized virtually no one had studied the evidence in the detail necessary to see if "officialdom" was bluffing or not.

I took the time to study it, and found that they were, for the most part, bluffing. Specter's work on the SBT, Guinn's work on NAA, and Canning's work on the bullet trajectories, in particular, stand out for me as obvious hoaxes--that would readily be seen as hoaxes by most everyone in America--should the evidence be presented to them.

But instead of starting a firestorm among single-assassin theorists, as I'd anticipated, I have spent most of the past ten years being attacked by other CTs. I mean, how dare I say that I believe the evidence clearly suggests a conspiracy and that it makes little sense to me that "they" would fake evidence that still suggested a conspiracy? I mean, if people started listening to me, that might pull the rug our from underneath the photo alterationists, the film alterationists, and even the body alterationists, and we can't have that, now, can we?

P.S. I was glad to see you agree that the wound in the back wound photo was at T-1. Now, for the 64,000 dollar question: was T-1 below the throat wound, as claimed by the HSCA FPP, or well above the throat wound, as pushed by McAdams, Artwohl, Zimmerman, Bugliosi, etc.?

[Cliff Varnell]

T1 shaming!

Can you dig it?

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Why do you constantly make stuff up, Cliff? Infallible? Where do you get this?

Because of your endless series of rationale for the primacy of the "measurements"/BOH.

You won't even crack to the possibility this evidence isn't infallible!

Mark is absolutely correct in that when I first started researching the case I was unnerved by the fact most every CT seemed to agree with "officialdom's" position that the official evidence suggested Oswald's sole guilt. And that these CTs then took from this that this evidence must be fake. Well, this unnerved me because I realized virtually no one had studied the evidence in the detail necessary to see if "officialdom" was bluffing or not.

I took the time to study it, and found that they were, for the most part, bluffing. Specter's work on the SBT, Guinn's work on NAA, and Canning's work on the bullet trajectories, in particular, stand out for me as obvious hoaxes--that would readily be seen as hoaxes by most everyone in America--should the evidence be presented to them.

But instead of starting a firestorm among single-assassin theorists, as I'd anticipated, I have spent most of the past ten years being attacked by other CTs

Yes, and you deserve every bit of it.

I studied the case avidly for 6 years before I posted one word about it on the internet.

You came off as Mr. Instant Expert assuring us there was nothing wrong with "measurements"/BOH and a wound at T1 was, according to you, a fact.

Bollix!

. I mean, how dare I say that I believe the evidence clearly suggests a conspiracy and that it makes little sense to me that "they" would fake evidence that still suggested a conspiracy?

Yes, Harold Weisberg made this same lame Vulcanmind-meld with the conspirators.

You don't know if the conspirators had to improvise under a time constraint, or perhaps for political reasons they wanted the evidence to appear fake.

You don't know, and to base your claims of fact on this is bogus.

I mean, if people started listening to me, that might pull the rug our from underneath the photo alterationists, the film alterationists, and even the body alterationists, and we can't have that, now, can we?

Don't put that stuff on me, pal!

I repeat: don't put that stuff on me.

One. More. Time.

Don't. Put. That. Stuff. On. Me.

Fox 5 BOH is demonstrably fake. I make no other claims of alteration. I'm otherwise agnostic on alteration.

Repeat:

I am otherwise agnostic on alteration.

I'm rabbit hole averse, you see.

P.S. I was glad to see you agree that the wound in the back wound photo was at T-1. Now, for the 64,000 dollar question: was T-1 below the throat wound, as claimed by the HSCA FPP, or well above the throat wound, as pushed by McAdams, Artwohl, Zimmerman, Bugliosi, etc.?

No!

That is NOT the $64,000 Question!

$64,000: "What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?"

I suggest you study wounds that existed, Pat, instead of coming up with all this nonsense about wounds that never happened.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

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.

[Robert Prudhomme]

From Pat Speer:

"P.S. If you think it ridiculous that a rifle bullet would not transit beyond the outer layers of the skin, perhaps you should consider the alternative. In your scenario, if I'm not mistaken, you believe that three doctors inspected the body of the most famous patient they would ever see, and found the entrance of a high-velocity bullet on his back flesh, but couldn't find any entrance beyond the flesh. Now, do you know how ridiculous this is? I've read dozens and dozens of books and articles on gunshot wounds, and this just does not happen. I mean, I've yet to find a single case study in which doctors valiantly tried to probe a high-velocity torso wound, but couldn't find any entrance into the body. Have you?"

I'll go one better than that, Pat. Not only did those three doctors hide the true nature of the back wound with the "short shot" and "shallow back wound" fairy tale, they also lied about a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head.

P.S.

I've also read many medical papers, and the majority of doctors will not try to probe bullet tracks for two reasons.

1. Tissue has a tendency to swell and close behind a bullet track, closing off the track.

2. Probes tend to make their own track if used too aggressively.

P.P.S.

Don't you dare get snarky with me and start making cracks about me being a self-appointed ballistics expert. I have likely forgotten more about ballistics than you will ever know. The reality of this situation is that a bullet travelling slowly enough to only penetrate an inch in flesh never would have found its target in the first place, for the reasons I have already outlined.

Uhh, sorry, Robert. Dead tissue doesn't bruise or swell, and pathologists do indeed insert metal probes from entrance to exit, and take pictures of the these probes within the body. Here is what the HSCA FPP had to say about Humes' inability to probe the back wound:

"The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce false tracks and misinformation."

Note that they don't criticize them for trying to probe the wound, or offer up any silliness about the track being closed off. No, they propose that the president's corpse stiffened up in such a way that the path through his body was twisted, and was not easily probed. They make it clear, moreover, that they believe they could have successfully probed the body, if only they'd manipulated his body into the position he was in when shot.

Uhh, sorry, Pat, JFK did not die instantly, as evidenced by the fact a pulse was detected at Parkland Hospital, and that he was expereiencing agonal breathing when he entered Parkland. There was plenty of time for swelling to take place in the wound.

And you are quoting the HSCA forensic panel? These are the folks that told us the SBT would work, aren't they? Sure, all they had to do was get JFK sitting just right, and they could have pushed a probe from the back wound right out the throat wound.

However, look at the last sentence of the quote:

"It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce false tracks and misinformation."

Is that not the reason I gave that most autopsy doctors do not probe wounds? Is there any other way to probe a wound than doing it blindly? The only reason the HSCA FPP came up with the story about it being possible to manipulate JFK just so to get a probe through the SBT wound is because these lowlife were still trying to sell the SBT to the public.

Honestly, Pat, I really wonder sometimes which team you play for.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

The "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

PAT: This is consistent with a shot from above's hitting the back at shallower angle than the forward slope of the shoulder plus the forward lean of the body.

How far over, Pat, are you claiming that JFK was leaning when he was shot in the back?

[Don Jeffries]

There is no logical reason for researchers to abandon the most obvious indicators of conspiracy. We have already seen how so many pro-conspiracy witnesses have been dismissed by those who claim to doubt the official story. If we place misguided trust in the autopsy photos and x-rays, while ignoring the testimony of so many witnesses, we are discarding some of the strongest evidence that there was a conspiracy.

Why are we trusting these tainted sources? Nothing about JFK's autopsy was legitimate. Harold Weisberg wrote Post Mortum on this theme alone, and David Lifton devised his body alteration theory based upon it. Pat has done some good work, but his willingness to downplay all the medical personnel who reported a huge hole in the back of JFK's head (something we don't see at all in the official photos) and use the higher back wound location, when the holes in JFK's clothing, the death certificate, and the original autopsy face sheet all place it at T-3, is something only he can explain.

We should be skeptical about everything in the official record of the assassination, and no aspect of this case is more suspect than the medical evidence, which as Cliff has noted was not prepared properly, to put it as politely as possible.

[Glenn Nall]

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.)