tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7271999103291863594..comments2024-03-19T05:35:07.296-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Unusual Perspectives... Uplifting Dogs... and science stuffDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11648798581613320042008-09-03T19:39:00.000-07:002008-09-03T19:39:00.000-07:00One more thing, just to be fair, found Noonan's re...One more thing, just to be fair, found Noonan's response on MSNBC. Following the Palin speech now.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/03/1338996.aspx" REL="nofollow">Response</A>.Brian Claymorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017976415908934264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82978708163337607862008-08-29T10:28:00.000-07:002008-08-29T10:28:00.000-07:00"...We may not agree on abortion, but surely we ca...<I>"...We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country"</I><BR/><BR/>Oddly enough, we can't. Many of the anti-abortion forces also have a covert agenda to restrict the use of many forms of birth control by redefining them as abortion. <B>This includes birth control pills!</B><BR/><BR/>Also, compared to comprehensive sex education, abstinence-only education has worse outcomes, yet various forces are pushing for it anyway.<BR/><BR/>See also: <A HREF="http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-believe-that-anti-choicers-mean-what-they-say/" REL="nofollow">Why it's difficult to believe that anti-choicers mean what they say</A>Doug S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11918949543315280580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91882404341059901532008-08-28T23:25:00.000-07:002008-08-28T23:25:00.000-07:00I've just been reading Obama's acceptance speech."...I've just been reading <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7587321.stm" REL="nofollow">Obama's acceptance speech</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>"...The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party."</I><BR/><BR/><I>"...We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country"</I><BR/><BR/>Oooh! Stipulation! On culture war fodder, no less!<BR/><BR/>The ball's in your court, John.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42686107581142138492008-08-28T20:41:00.000-07:002008-08-28T20:41:00.000-07:00More on furry uplift artforms.(Banksy's current fr...More on <A HREF="http://kevinandkell.com/2008/kk0823.html" REL="nofollow">furry uplift</A> artforms.<BR/><BR/>(Banksy's current front page is kind of appropriate as well!)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6892571113776186172008-08-28T18:46:00.000-07:002008-08-28T18:46:00.000-07:00I would expect sapient canines to turn pee into an...<I>I would expect sapient canines to turn pee into an artform.</I><BR/><BR/>As in "<A HREF="http://www.banksy.co.uk/menu.html" REL="nofollow" TITLE="it's a spray thing">Barksy</A>"?Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78378852072674187112008-08-28T18:26:00.000-07:002008-08-28T18:26:00.000-07:00I would expect sapient canines to turn pee into an...I would expect sapient canines to turn pee into an artform. ("You wouldn't understand it. It's a dog thing.")<BR/><BR/>While writing GURPS Uplift, several playtesters pointed me at a humorous SF strip called <A HREF="http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff600/fv00570.htm" REL="nofollow">Freefall.</A><BR/><BR/>The first few times I looked I shrugged. It seemed awfully silly, and maybe a "furry" strip, something I haven't been able to get into. But once in a while it gets borderline deep on the plight of one of the lead characters, an uplifted red wolf.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22105128694963362242008-08-28T17:43:00.000-07:002008-08-28T17:43:00.000-07:00Pee's not as big a problem as poo. And, presumably...Pee's not as big a problem as poo. And, presumably, bright dogs can learn subtlety and moderation.<BR/><BR/>(Nah! Don't say it: spray it!!)<BR/><BR/>(Speaking of which, does anyone recall the scene in 3001 where a resurrected Frank Poole has the living bejezus scared out of him when he encounters a resurrected velociraptor gardener?)<BR/><BR/>On examples of power, has anyone caught up with <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7586605.stm" REL="nofollow">Putin's remarks</A> on what he suspects motivated Georgia's little stunt?Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23222347336835180012008-08-28T17:23:00.000-07:002008-08-28T17:23:00.000-07:00Dog poo: You can train a dog to crap in a particul...Dog poo: You can train a dog to crap in a particular place a lot more easily than you can to have him PEE in a particular place.<BR/><BR/>Dog pee is a method of communication!<BR/><BR/>Based on my dog's behavior, placement is very important. Sometimes, after laying out some carefully placed drops, she kicks around the dirt with a defiant grin on her place. There's no way -- currently -- to know exactly what's going on in her noggin, but I'm guessing it is something like "that will show that bitch!"<BR/><BR/>* * *<BR/>The cow thing is fascinating!<BR/><BR/>Part of me dreads that this leads to the discovery that Fung Shui has a biology.<BR/>* * *<BR/><BR/>Clinton's speech was pretty amazing.<BR/><BR/>"The power of our example, not the example of our power" . . . that was sheer brilliance.<BR/><BR/>Previews of Obama's speech are promising. Fingers crossed!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76617150353056092742008-08-28T17:08:00.000-07:002008-08-28T17:08:00.000-07:00A topical article on mindset vs 'IQ' is here (NS s...A topical article on mindset vs 'IQ' is <A HREF="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19926700.500-interview-why-praising-your-kids-intelligence-isnt-smart.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> (NS subscription required)<BR/><BR/>The take-away message is that you will achieve more if you don't know your limits than if you do.<BR/><BR/>(aka avoid getting into a rut. It might seem an obvious lesson, but it's actually one of those that gets overlooked surprisingly easily)<BR/><BR/>SteveO's remark about aptitudes reminds me of personality profiling tests, which tend to be of the view that you should score high AND low in various qualities<BR/>(the actual scores aren't as important as the differences)<BR/><BR/>How goes the next novel? Watching George Martin's anguish, I won't mention deadlines...<BR/><BR/>re: cows. I haven't followed it in detail. Someone wondered if it was an pixellation artefact, but that assumes all cameras were aligned N/S. Another possibility: it's quite likely field boundaries are aligned N/S. Are cows following the fenceline? (*Magnetic* N/S, though?)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40216810220756261702008-08-28T16:25:00.000-07:002008-08-28T16:25:00.000-07:00The dogpoo problem is big. Perhaps the biggest re...The dogpoo problem is big. Perhaps the biggest reason to get them to the point where they could use kiosks and then be trusted to run free. As I portray in next novel.)<BR/><BR/>Say! Anyone see the recent discovery that cattle tend to line up toward/awayfrom North?<BR/><BR/>How could such a thing have escaped notice till now? How!!<BR/><BR/>Dang Clinton (bill) was amazing last night.<BR/>http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=fl7Jc8tNxck&feature=user<BR/><BR/>I am really looking fwd to seeing Bush try to match it, at the RNC. Will they schedule him at 3 am?David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19331053031220168752008-08-28T16:11:00.000-07:002008-08-28T16:11:00.000-07:00Path from here to uplift... that is more Dr Brin's...Path from here to uplift... that is more Dr Brin's area.<BR/><BR/>My personal take is that self-interested enhancement of animals to better do jobs for us humans is a quite viable route. It has proceeded along nicely so far, and speeding it up with GM and more clever breeding is already underway.<BR/><BR/>The trick will be targeting more general abilities/jobs. So far that is much more of a technical issue than a ethical/social one. As we get more capability for manipulation, we can (and already do) widen our focus. Dairy cows are being bred not just for maximal milk production, but also for general health, ease of birthing, and even 'better' behaviour.<BR/><BR/>I really think one way of encouraging eventual 'uplift' is to use animals more and more to help us. I'd be very happy to see working dogs become much more common. It actually seems pretty dumb to me that sniffer dogs are not absolutely ubiquitous in 'security' settings as well as many hazardous materials monitoring settings. (People have trained dogs to find termites and mold in building even!) And existing breeds of dogs can do a lot more. How about Newfoundlands on beach patrol, public pools, and boats? Really, the possibilities are vast. May not be the cheapest at first, but as they become more common they not only become more available but breeding progresses and can make subsequent generations better at their jobs (and capable of larger and more autonomous jobs).Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4196981351036965892008-08-28T15:49:00.000-07:002008-08-28T15:49:00.000-07:00Steveo, IQ scores are also used (in some places at...Steveo, IQ scores are also used (in some places at least) to identify young students who have problems in the normal classroom setting but have good ability/'intelligence'. A bit like: "This kid is getting really crappy grades, but is pretty bright." Basically providing a comparison of different learning and evaluations styles to identify when one is failing.<BR/><BR/>I know this from personal experience. Though I don't remember my IQ score, I do remember that it was instrumental in getting teachers and admins to 'accommodate' my crappy performance and disciplinary problems when I was a little kid.<BR/><BR/>Of course IQ tests don't really measure 'intelligence', but they do positively correlate with some aspects of intelligence. I think everyone here is clever enough to understand variance issues and such... so there really isn't much to argue about. (People who don't grok variance or statistical measures do often really overestimate what an IQ score means sadly.)<BR/><BR/>More scales/metrics would be better, up to a point of course. There a practical limitations and unintended consequences from too much measurement/evaluation.<BR/><BR/>BTW: IQ tests (and their imperfect correlation with other measures) actually contributed a lot to the 'multiple-intelligences' idea. <BR/><BR/>PS: As for Feynman's verbal scores bringing down his analytic scores... I can buy that. His verbal abilities were quite good, but his analytic aptitude was downright god-like.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-58469462735412932392008-08-28T15:22:00.000-07:002008-08-28T15:22:00.000-07:00If any of you live in the Tucson area... sometime ...If any of you live in the Tucson area... sometime member of this group, SF fan and Uplift Expert Bill Taylor is in St John's hospital with blood clots. I'll send a book to anyone who visits him...David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85728535421339049202008-08-28T15:11:00.000-07:002008-08-28T15:11:00.000-07:00Bits-per-second metrics would likely mislead more ...Bits-per-second metrics would likely mislead more than inform, since it's not at all likely that the human brain functions like any kind of linear device, including chained-parallel arrays of linear devices.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618647194288598056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30249941631859209572008-08-28T14:22:00.000-07:002008-08-28T14:22:00.000-07:00What if we just got a number that said 'this is th...<I>What if we just got a number that said 'this is the number of bits per second your brain can process and retain for use.' hard to test - but it is a linear measure.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not well-defined as stated, unfortunately, until you nail down "process" and "retain". ("Process" is really hard; "retain" you'd at least need to specify how much would have to be retained and for how long.)Joshua O'Madadhainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02305095335471811013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87587109018257833732008-08-28T12:30:00.000-07:002008-08-28T12:30:00.000-07:00Anonymous,What if we just got a number that said '...Anonymous,<BR/>What if we just got a number that said 'this is the number of bits per second your brain can process and retain for use.' hard to test - but it is a linear measure.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49471136046580145392008-08-28T10:48:00.000-07:002008-08-28T10:48:00.000-07:00Absolutely cool to drop it Dr. Brin.The Wiki on th...Absolutely cool to drop it Dr. Brin.<BR/><BR/>The Wiki on the subject is extremely well-cited and pretty balanced over-all, if your interest veers in that direction in future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3936510625363223102008-08-28T10:29:00.000-07:002008-08-28T10:29:00.000-07:00IQ was only ever intended to identify kids in scho...IQ was only ever intended to identify kids in school who need extra help in learning. Its utility beyond the first standard deviation above average (by definition 20 points) is dubious. The one thing that an IQ test measures is the performance of someone on an IQ test, BUT it probably does accurately identify kids who would benefit from extra help (sub-90).<BR/><BR/>Zorgon makes a strawman argument in attacking IQ as a stand-in for intelligence. In fact, in even assuming that "intelligence" could be measured on a continuous scale. There are many axes to intelligence. For example, the Human Engineering Laboratory of the Johnson O'Conner Research Foundation identified eighteen different aptitudes:<BR/><BR/>Personality<BR/>-Objective personality works best with others<BR/>-Subjective belongs in specialized, individual work<BR/><BR/>Graphoria<BR/>-Clerical ability, adeptness at paperwork, and dealing with figures and symbols<BR/><BR/>Ideaphoria<BR/>-Creative imagination or fluency of ideas<BR/><BR/>Structural Visualization<BR/>-Ability to think in three dimensions, to visualize solids<BR/>-Abstract visualization is the ability to deal in ideas <BR/>-Lack of structural visualization means you have abstract visualization<BR/><BR/>Inductive reasoning<BR/>-Ability to form a logical conclusion from scattered facts<BR/><BR/>Analytic reasoning<BR/>-Ability to arrange information systematically<BR/><BR/>Finger dexterity<BR/>-Ability to manipulate fingers skillfully<BR/><BR/>Tweezer dexterity<BR/>-Ability to handle small tools easily<BR/><BR/>Observation<BR/>-The ability to observe details and identify discrepancies in observations<BR/><BR/>Design memory<BR/>-Ability to memorize designs readily<BR/><BR/>Tonal memory<BR/>-Ability to remember sounds, an ear for music<BR/><BR/>Pitch discrimination <BR/>-Ability to differentiate musical notes<BR/><BR/>Rhythmic ability<BR/>-Ability to keep time<BR/><BR/>Number memory<BR/>-Ability to remember numbers of all kinds, and to keep many things in your mind<BR/><BR/>Numerical reasoning<BR/>-An aptitude for identifying relationships among sets of numbers<BR/><BR/>Silograms<BR/>-Ability to learn languages, ease in remembering unfamiliar words, technical jargon, etc.<BR/><BR/>Foresight<BR/>-Ability to look ahead, concern or prudence about the future<BR/><BR/>Color perception<BR/>-Ability to distinguish colors<BR/><BR/>Someone could be a genius in any of these areas. (Interestingly, they found that people who had high aptitude in a number of areas tended to *underperform* - they had a hard time finding any task fulfilling since it only used some of their aptitudes.)<BR/><BR/>And that leads to my last point, which is that while we probably can't put a single continuous number to "upliftedness" or intelligence, we can certainly rank order subjects according to observable criteria. Ordinal data like this can be analyzed if done correctly (albeit with lower power than ratio or interval data). Hence the "card" system in Dr. B's universe. A board comes to consensus on ranking criteria, if you are high on them all you get the "procreate at will" card, if you are highly ranked on a few, you get the "procreate with approval" card, where you might be encouraged to have babies with someone highly ranked in those areas where you are not. Using rankings means that it is a relative measure, so whatever "high" was last generation may be common in the next generation.<BR/><BR/>So it could be done. It would be interesting to see how we get to where we are now ("Scientists are playing God!!") to uplift. I can't see a clear path to there...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6639559254348773892008-08-28T08:47:00.000-07:002008-08-28T08:47:00.000-07:00Anonymous:Read my post again. I am not saying tha...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>Read my post again. I am not saying that IQ, per se, is a perfect measure of anything, much less everything, intelligence-related. My point was primarily that I believe that we have a good enough handle on what intelligence is that we can aspire to doing things to improve it in ourselves and in other creatures, not that IQ per se is the best means we have of measuring it.<BR/><BR/>(I'd also bet that the tests that measure IQ have evolved significantly over time, so conclusions based on scores from 80 years ago may no longer be valid.)<BR/><BR/>I do believe that you and Zorgon are incorrect in saying that it is completely useless as a metric of intelligence, however. <BR/><BR/>Saying "people who have 70 IQ can get a degree in math or physics" is about as useful as saying that men who are 5'6" can be pro basketball players in the US. Sure there are exceptions...although I'm unaware of any examples of people with 70 IQ with a math or physics degree at a reputable institution...but outliers do not invalidate conclusions drawn from the bulk of the distribution.<BR/><BR/>Genius, Feynman's wikipedia entry states that his IQ was tested at 123 (referencing Gleick's biography); it doesn't speculate on the part scores. *shrug*Joshua O'Madadhainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02305095335471811013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75819100140425899122008-08-28T08:33:00.000-07:002008-08-28T08:33:00.000-07:00Err... I don't think IQ Scores measure much of any...Err... I don't think IQ Scores measure much of anything reliably. If you are interested in comparative strengths, and look at the subscores, then maybe you've got something close to "how well does person A learn using technique X."<BR/><BR/>This doesn't change the fact that idiots (that's IQ less than 70, I believe) can go to college for Physics or Mathematics and get straight A's. <BR/><BR/>IQ should NOT be considered a number. Anyone with learning disabilities can explain to you exactly why their IQ score doesn't say very much about their ability to learn. <BR/><BR/>If people would look at IQ in terms of average and standard deviation, then you've got something better going on. Even still, the coping mechanisms would seem to matter more than the actual difference in scores.<BR/><BR/>IQ, like many things, works well only for a subset of the population. In this respect, it is rather like clothing sizes. Like clothing sizes, there are ways to optimize it that have not been applied as of yet [some measurement of coping mechanisms -- perhaps your ability to solve harder problems which can be leveraged more easily than simpler ones]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24985783077358010032008-08-27T23:58:00.000-07:002008-08-27T23:58:00.000-07:00joshua,Admittedly I have not seen the source data ...joshua,<BR/>Admittedly I have not seen the source data but the comment about his verbal score was not just a thought - it is a common story like the point about him having 127 IQ. Of course maybe neither is true.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-83733268351004179942008-08-27T14:43:00.000-07:002008-08-27T14:43:00.000-07:00On the definition of intelligence: at the risk of ...On the definition of intelligence: at the risk of being seen as That Guy (you know, the one with no obvious credentials weighing in on a contentious and technical topic) here is a definition that I constructed a few years back on a (now-defunct) discussion list whose purpose was this sort of scientific/philosophical musing.<BR/><BR/><I>An intelligent system is one that generates solutions of fairly good quality to problems with which it is presented. In particular, it should be capable of generating workable solutions to problems that it has never seen before.<BR/><BR/><B>System A may be considered more intelligent than system B if any of the following are true:</B><BR/><BR/>* A's solutions tend to be of higher quality than B's solutions for problems that they are both capable of addressing<BR/>* A has a broader spectrum of problems that it can address<BR/>* A is better at B at generating solutions to novel problems (or, perhaps equivalently, at expanding its spectrum of effectively<BR/>addressable problems)<BR/>* A's process of generating solutions, or of expanding its addressable problem spectrum, is more rapid (for solutions of comparable quality) than B's.</I><BR/><BR/>Note that this does not focus on defining "intelligent" in an absolute sense. I'm inclined to think that trying to do so is the wrong way of thinking about intelligence: intelligence is arguably something which is possessed by everything alive to some degree or another...so rather than trying to draw a line, it's more useful to establish criteria for meaningful comparisons.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In any case, Zorgon, I think you're observing that IQ isn't a predictor of success in all contexts in which we might expect possession of superior intelligence to be an advantage, and deciding on that basis that we know nothing about how to measure intelligence (despite the fact that IQ is far from the only extant metric). I'm quite tall, but not a good basketball player; does this mean that we don't know how to measure height? :)<BR/><BR/>As to your desire for a scientifically testable set of criteria...I think the ones that I've proposed comprise a reasonable basis for such criteria. If you disagree, I'd be interested to know in what ways you find them deficient.<BR/><BR/><BR/>(Incidentally, Genius, I've read some of Feynman's work, and I don't think that you could reasonably categorize him as someone whose verbal part score would have dragged his IQ score down. He was a very articulate person.)Joshua O'Madadhainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02305095335471811013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-13910405515090665392008-08-27T11:50:00.000-07:002008-08-27T11:50:00.000-07:00Jester, according to records cited by the Quantum ...Jester, according to records cited by the Quantum Leap show, Oswald missed “expert” rating by one point. Granted, that was a TV show. But why would they lie?<BR/><BR/>I am not totally closed to a conspiracy. But (1) it would have to supplement, not replace Oswald, and with a maximum of one other person. (2) Somehow guide and control Oswald even though he was a loose cannon. (3) Silence him after (Ruby) while ensuring the silencer stayed silent.<BR/><BR/>What I don’t like is conspiracy folks calling dissenters the majority view. Almost nobody is in the lone gunman camp. The conspiracy has become religious dogma.<BR/><BR/>What’s clear is that Oliver Stone was totally wedged. Super-competent mega-conspirators would never have involved a guy like Oswald. Stone’s notion of pinning it on Johnson was madness. Kennedy was the macho, gung ho Vietnam pusher. LBJ was super loyal to JFK across the five years that followed, pushing his every agenda.<BR/><BR/>Look, my father was 20 feet from Bobby Kennedy when HE was shot. And the topic is really really sensitive right now. I lose sleep over it. Let’s move on.<BR/><BR/>-----<BR/><BR/>This from a guy on the Lifeboat site:<BR/><BR/><I>“Putting the AI Risks article on Wikipedia has been done and is consistent<BR/>with the LifeBoat mission which includes increasing public awareness of<BR/>existential risks. However, a number of self-appointed, presumably<BR/>well-meaning, but misguided monitors have nominated the article for<BR/>deletion. I think it is worth trying to save the article and indeed use the<BR/>experience as a start toward getting other information on LifeBoat similarly<BR/>uploaded. So, how to save the article? Suggestions:<BR/><BR/>1) Check it out for yourself:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risks_of_artificial_intelligence <BR/><BR/>2) Check out the deletion discussion page:<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Existential_risks_of_artificial_intelligence<BR/><BR/>3) Improve the article. Just click the "edit" tab at the top of the<BR/>article's page to begin. Please do not feel intimidated by this process.<BR/><BR/>4) Place your concise, polite, logical comment on the deletion discussion<BR/>page. Just click the "edit" tab at the top of the page to begin.</I><BR/><BR/>Me? I think the article just dips a toe in a very broad subject. But it's a start.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-87002695383694536802008-08-27T07:48:00.000-07:002008-08-27T07:48:00.000-07:00Oh, the ammount of penatration has never been issu...Oh, the ammount of penatration has never been issue. That's not in any way unbelievable.<BR/><BR/>The original bullet, however, looked like it had been fired into a 20 lb boneless ham, not like it had smashed through quite a bit of bone.<BR/><BR/>I'm not, BTW, one of these "anyone who thinks Oswald acted alone is a dupe and a fool" folks. <BR/><BR/>It's just a less plausible explination.<BR/><BR/>The Zapruder film is real. Chunks of Kennedys skull were blown onto the trunk of the car. That's *highly improbable* if he was shot from above and to his right at a steep angle.<BR/><BR/>Yes, possible. Not likely. The "magic bullet"? Possible. Not likely. The "magic bullet" being pristine? Possible. Not likely. Oswald, given his known skill, making those shots in that time period? Possible. Not likely.<BR/><BR/>Now, all of those things are MORE likely than some giant plot involving the CIA, FBI, Seceret Service, Dallas PD, Lyndon Johnson, the entire trauma team at a nearby hospital, and so on. <BR/><BR/>However, this is a false choice. If Occams Razor slices both ways, the simplest explination is two gunmen, one of whom got away. <BR/><BR/>It just irks me when "debunkers" paid to do quality research try to pass off a guy who barely qualified at the range as Sgt. friggin' York. It causes me to seriously question their objectivity.<BR/><BR/>That's not a comment on Dr. Brin, but the makers of the documentary.<BR/><BR/>_______________________<BR/><BR/>Travc -<BR/><BR/>In the Army and Marines, there are also "Designated Marksmen" and "Squad Designated Marksmen". These "job titles" shouldn't be confused with the range qualifying score "grades".<BR/><BR/>The Air Force may have or have had something similar in Vietnam, I don't really know, but there's no ribbon for it. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Do you remember what your dads ribbon looked like? If it's light green in center, flanked by two thin yellow lines, and then with two light blue bands on the outside, that means he qualified Expert, the highest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-63014465640567204932008-08-27T04:04:00.000-07:002008-08-27T04:04:00.000-07:00@jesterI watched the doc that Dr Brin was talking ...@jester<BR/>I watched the doc that Dr Brin was talking about... and they most certainly did compare bullet condition against the the 'magic bullet'. It was more deformed, but not massively so and more tellingly, the deformations were of the same sort (pristine nose, a bit of flattening, slight banana-ish curving, and some softer metal leaking out the butt.)<BR/><BR/>Overall, their recreated shot was very convincing. The neck, back, chest, and wrist wounds were pretty much identical (no, Connely's back wound wasn't a exit, it was a yawed entry.) They hit 2 ribs instead of one (the Connely back wound), and didn't quite penetrate into the thigh. About as accurate as you can get recreating a specific shot.<BR/><BR/>You seem to know a bit about weapons, so I would suspect one bullet being able to penetrate so much wouldn't surprise you. Most people don't have any experience with high powered rifles and FMJ rounds. (A bit like the people who think that the WTC towers had explosives in them since it didn't look like a 'normal collapse' and the lower story windows blew out... as if they have a clue what a collapsing hi-rise building looks like.)<BR/><BR/>BTW: Do you happen to know the Army (and/or Airforce) marksman ratings? I've got a bit of a family mystery regarding what my father really did during Vietnam. AF truck drivers stationed in Turkey don't typically go to jump school or proudly display their marksman ratings for 30+ years. He really was a disturbingly good shot, and that was in his 40s and 50s when I was old enough to comprehend it. (There were several other very odd things too...)Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.com