VB, GARY A., THE SBT, NAA, AND CS&L
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e49bc952b950dad
=================================================
http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html
Gee, what a shocker! A CTer actually disagrees with Bugliosi and the
"LN" scenario!
Never would have imagined a thing like that occurring in a million
years.
Gary Aguilar, as expected, spends an inordinate amount of time trying
to prop up the idea that Guinn's NAA data is totally invalid. The
truth is, of course, that the NAA analysis is (and always has been)
merely corroborative in nature and is actually completely unneeded in
order to determine the very-likely origin of the small bullet
fragments associated with the JFK case.
For, I still want to know what the odds are of ZERO pieces of any non-
Oswald bullets (large enough to be tested via traditional ballistics
means, that is) showing up anywhere (car, hospital, victims) and yet
still have bullets from any non-Oswald guns striking any victims in
that limousine?
The ONLY bullets/fragments large enough to be tested ballistically are
linked irrevocably to Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano Rifle #C2766. This
is a FACT that cannot be denied...no matter how many CTers show up in
the future to try and dispute this irreversible fact.
And that irreversible fact about the bullets and fragments is an
absolutely incredible fact IF OTHER GUNS WERE INVOLVED IN HITTING THE
VICTIMS TOO. (Don't you think?)
Is there anyone out there who thinks it's actually LIKELY, given the
above-mentioned fact about the bullet evidence, for multiple non-C2766
guns to have been involved in the assassination? If anyone thinks such
a scenario IS "likely", they must be living in a different galaxy.
Common sense alone solves the bullet "mystery" (which isn't a mystery
at all, of course, if you're a reasonable person).
And I'm guessing that the chances were mighty, mighty low indeed for
Dr. Guinn to have arrived at a "2 Bullets From C2766" conclusion in
1977-78, even based on 1970s standards, IF MULTIPLE OTHER TYPES OF
BULLETS/GUNS had really been in the bullet mix that Guinn examined for
the HSCA.
That's yet another "absolutely incredible" one-gun-favoring conclusion
if THREE different guns had actually fired bullets that struck JFK &
JBC on 11/22/63 (as almost all anti-SBT advocates MUST believe, due to
several factors).
So, per those anti-SBTers, bullets from THREE different guns (at
least!) entered the victims and yet the only pieces of bullet large
enough to be tested ballistically (in order to exclude or include
Oswald's C2766) just happened to be a whole bullet and two fragments
from that exact gun--C2766.
(Is this truly higher math....or brain surgery? To me, it's obvious.
But to many CTers, it's completely up in the air. Go figure.)
Regarding CE399.......
I thinks it's quite humorous that many CTers have "switched" to a "The
Bullet Was Switched Instead Of Planted" mindset with respect to CE399
(as Dr. Aguilar mentions having occurred over the last several
years).
Maybe it's akin to David Lifton's conspiratorial mindset -- i.e., if
one theory falls flat, just move on to the next wholly-unsupportable
one.
Mr. Lifton has seemingly utilized that motto on various occasions
since his mind-numbing piece of tripe called "Best Evidence" was
released and gobbled up with glee by a lot of CT-Kooks in 1980 and
1981.
But the idea of a "switched" bullet is every bit as silly as a
"planted" 399....if for no other reason, it just about totally
demolishes ANOTHER long-held belief of the anti-SBT CTers -- that
being: the belief by theorists that NO BULLET (399 or otherwise) could
have ended up in the near-perfect condition that 399 was in after
being discovered on Governor Connally's stretcher by Darrell
Tomlinson.
But the "switched" theory includes a WHOLE, INTACT, and (per most
CTers I've encountered who love this "switched" theory) POINTY-NOSED
bullet being found by Tomlinson instead of CE399.
So, per that "switched" scenario, I guess a bullet remained pretty
much INTACT and (just exactly like CE399) suffered no damage at all to
the "business end of the bullet--the tip" (to use the verbatim words
of Dr. Gary Aguilar from the above-linked article), because that
"pointy" bullet was still "pointy-nosed" when discovered by Tomlinson
(per many conspiracists).
It makes me wonder HOW those same CTers can possibly accept the idea
of a pointy-nosed bullet remaining "pointy-nosed" after having done
THE VERY SAME DAMAGE TO GOVERNOR CONNALLY that CE399 is said to have
done per the Warren Commission and the HSCA?
Or do those "switched"-favoring CTers think that the "pointy" bullet
wasn't really the bullet that was inside John Connally either? Was
THAT bullet "planted", and then "switched" for Oswald's 399?
Seems to me it's a "six of one, half-dozen of the other" type of
argument here. Either a pointy bullet remained intact and without a
crushed nose after going through Connally's body and ended up on that
stretcher inside Parkland Hospital....or CE399 did. And the best
evidence is that JBC was hit by just a SINGLE bullet, not two or three
missiles.
Either way that argument is sliced and theorized, it would appear that
a decent-sized number of CTers are going to have to jettison a theory
they've held so dear for a long, long time -- that being the theory
that a bullet could not possibly end up in a whole, unfragmented, non-
mutilated condition after breaking the bones it must have broken in
John Connally's body.
In the final (and logical) analysis, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming
History" will probably remain the JFK Bible for many decades to come,
despite the CTers who have a desire to pick apart every evidence-based
sentence within it.
David Von Pein
December 3, 2007
==================================================
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bceb46435b39817f
John Fiorentino
Very few people actually understand what is going on here in toto, First,
quite obviously there is now and never was any forensic evidence for
anything other than 2 shots which hit.
Your approach is certainly noteworthy.
However, in deference to those who have legitimately pursued an analysis of
Guinn's work, the question is, Can the NAA alone be used to determine the
number of bullets which hit from the lead evidence alone. That is the
question Guinn tried to answer, and the question legitimate studies like
Rahn/Sturdivan, Randich/Grant attempted to answer.
What might be termed illegitimate studies, such as Spiegelman, et al, which
resulted to scientific duplicity in order to cover their butts have been
exposed for what they are. The fact that these authors indeed changed
portions of their paper based on my rebuttal, and offered no credit to me
for those changes while still clinging to their original conclusions even
though those conclusions were never supported by either the evidence or,
effectively by their own paper is quite evident.
Anyone interested can reference the relevant materials here:
http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:92f71018-20a6-479b...@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
pjsp...@aol.com
were Guinn's conclusions based on insufficient science, but that they
were 100% WRONG based on the available science. Anyone--Rahn,
Sturdivan, Fiorentino, etc--trying to revive confidence in his
findings needs to find bullet fragments from the same bullet as
diverse as those of CE 399 and the wrist fragment, before anyone can
take them seriously. Get to it.
From patspeer.com, chapter 11:
If one looks at Guinn's results, one realizes there is a surprising
lack of uniformity in the make-up of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets, both
from bullet to bullet and box to box. This is because the type of
ammunition used in the gun believed to be Oswald's was made from the
melted-down lead of other bullets. When one looks even closer at
Guinn's analysis, one finds that his interpretation of his test
results leaves even more to be desired. Since Guinn believed that
similar counts in parts per million of certain elements could leave an
identifiable fingerprint of exact bullets, and that antimony, silver,
and copper were the most reliable of these elements, let's make a
comparison between three sets of bullets on these elements, and
Guinn's subsequent conclusions.
Numbers reflect the counts of the two samples in parts per million.
A vs. B. 647-602 antimony, 8.6-7.9 silver, and 44-40 copper.
C vs. D, 833-797 antimony, 9.8-7.9 silver, and 994-58 copper.
E vs. F, 732-730 antimony, 15.9-15.3 silver, and 23-21 copper.
So which two samples were described by Guinn as being from the same
bullet?
Well, that's actually a trick question, as A vs. B actually represents
FOUR samples, a fragment found in Kennedy's brain, two fragments found
on the floor of the limousine, and the nose of the bullet found on the
front seat. And yet notice how uniform they seem to be. One might
actually conclude they are probably from the same bullet. And Guinn
did. Well, since they were so uniform and since Guinn also concluded
the wrist fragments came from the magic bullet, then E vs. F must be
the comparison between the magic bullet and the wrist fragment, right?
WRONG. E vs. F is a comparison between 6001B and 6003A, test bullets
taken from separate batches of ammunition from separate years.
Subsequent tests showed them to be quite dissimilar.
Which leaves C vs. D as the wrist/magic comparison. Since the silver
and copper ranges are substantial, it's safe to say Guinn's conclusion
came purely from the similarity on antimony. He ignored everything
else and focused on those two numbers...833-797. And yet, when one
looks at the test results, one finds that 6002 A2 was at 869, and 6001
B4 was at 791, within 36 ppm of the magic bullet and the wrist
fragment, respectively, and this out of only 40 tests beyond the magic
bullet and wrist fragment. This translates to there being a 5% chance
for the wrist and magic fragments to fall within 36 ppm randomly. Of
the 14 different bullets tested from assorted boxes of Western
Cartridge ammunition, in fact, 3, 6000a, 6001d, and 6001A, were within
15 ppm on antimony, even though they were from different years and
different batches. This reduces the 833-797 numbers to nothing near
the relevance Guinn and such disciples as Kenneth Rahn attach to it.
When one takes into account the other six elements tested, in fact,
the logical deduction is amazingly the opposite of Guinn's ...that
it's highly probable the magic bullet and the wrist fragment ARE NOT
related.
A comparison of ranges of the 4 fragments found in the limousine vs.
the magic bullet/wrist fragment on the 7 elements tested by Guinn:
Antimony: 4 fragments 647-602, magic/wrist 833-797
Silver: 4 fragments 8.6-7.9, magic/wrist 9.8-7.9
Copper: 4 fragments 44-40, magic/wrist 994-58
Aluminum: 4 fragments 5.5-1.1, magic/wrist 8.1-0
Manganese: 4 fragments 0.1-0.01, magic/wrist 0.09-0.07
Sodium: 4 fragments 134-9, magic/wrist 120-5
Chlorine: 4 fragments 59-22, magic/wrist 257-19
Since the range of 2 related samples should be smaller than the range
of 4 related samples (7 out of 8 times), and since the range
difference should usually be significant, it's clear that manganese is
the only element that suggests the magic bullet and wrist fragment are
related, and that antimony and sodium are also consistent with that
analysis. It's equally obvious that the other 4 elements tested are
strongly suggestive there was NO relation at all between the two, as
the range of the 2 samples is many times that of the 4. The proper
conclusion then should be that the magic bullet and the wrist fragment
are most probably not related. This conclusion is supported by the
additional fact that CE 399, while missing some lead, is not believed
to have lost any size-able amount of copper. As both Connally's coat
by his exit wound and the wrist fragments themselves were found to
contain inordinate amounts of copper, one should conclude he was
struck by a separate bullet whose jacket had been badly damaged. In
short, anyone whose argument for the single bullet theory relies on
Guinn's analysis has clearly never studied Guinn's results with an
open mind. His conclusion was wrong; whether he sincerely believed his
testimony or was asked to lie is open to conjecture.
While I had not planned on engaging in such conjecture, recent
developments in bullet lead analysis have alerted me to much that is
suspicious with Guinn's analysis, beyond his incorrect conclusions. On
September 1, 2005, the FBI announced they would discontinue the use of
bullet lead matching. Their decision was spurred on by a February
2004 report by the National Academy of Sciences questioning the value
of bullet lead analysis, particularly in light that it had never been
tested by scientists outside those whose careers depended on its
presumed worth, including Vincent Guinn. Surprisingly, this study was
performed by the Academy on behalf of the FBI itself, after a former
FBI metallurgist named William Tobin began writing articles critical
of the probative value of bullet lead analysis. Shockingly, this study
spurred one-time HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey, the man who pushed
Guinn's findings on the House Committee, to reverse himself and
publicly denounce Guinn's findings as "junk science." Among the
reports written by Mr. Tobin and members of the Academy, I found at
least three good reasons to be even more suspicious of Guinn.
1. Although bullet lead analysis has been used for over 30 years,
the FBI would not allow its employees to testify beyond that a bullet
(usually found within a body) was likely to have come from the same
box of bullets as was found somewhere else (usually in the home of a
suspect). Guinn's testimony that it was "highly probable" the wrist
fragments and the magic bullet were parts of the same bullet is
perhaps the only time in history someone has testified to such
degree. Since the National Academy has now found that "The available
data do not support any statement that a crime bullet came from, or is
likely to have come from, a particular box of ammunition," and that
the possible existence of coincidentally indistinguishable bullets
"should be acknowledged in the laboratory report and by the expert
witness" it would seem apparent that Guinn's expert opinion went above
and beyond what was warranted.
2. While Guinn said his opinion was based on the results of three
elements, antimony, silver, and copper, the FBI at that time was using
antimony, copper, and arsenic. Even when Guinn expanded his test to
seven elements, arsenic was not included. This forces one to consider
the possibility that Guinn tested arsenic, found it did not match, and
excluded it from his results. Since silver, which the FBI started
using as one of its seven elements in 1990, is reported to have little
value, as most bullets are within a small range in parts per million,
and are considered to match, its propping up by Guinn as the second
most valuable element is also intriguing. Perhaps, faced with the
fact that copper failed to match, and being aware of how bad it would
look if two out of the three elements he tested failed to match, Guinn
simply picked an element that would help him make his case. I asked a
prestigious metallurgist who'd helped me in the past if he knew of any
good reason Guinn would use silver instead of arsenic, and have yet to
receive an answer. The lack of value of silver as a determinant that
two fragments have an identical source is made obvious by Guinn's own
results, where more than half of the test bullets matched the wrist
fragment in silver, with many of them closer in parts per million than
the "magic" bullet determined by Guinn to be identical.
3. It seems Guinn himself was skeptical of any conclusions based on
only three elements. In 1970, a report for the Atomic Energy
Commission prepared by Guinn and three other scientists concluded "two
bullets with the same pattern of only three identification points are
not usually definitively identified as having a common source,
Matching concentrations of all three elements does not indicate that
two bullets came from the same lot." Since the FBI began using seven
elements 20 years later, and since it was necessary for a bullet to
match on all three elements tested up until that time, and all seven
elements afterwards, before the FBI would even find that a bullet came
from the same box as another bullet, it seems clear that, due to the
problems with copper, at no time in its history would the FBI have
testified that the wrist fragments and the magic bullet matched. In
fact, when given the opportunity to do so, in 1964, the FBI ruled
their tests inconclusive and kept them from the public. The question
then is not only why did Guinn testify in the manner he testified, in
contradiction to his previous reports and the accepted standards of
the FBI, but whether the FBI was deliberately removed from the
process.
Should one suspect I'm exaggerating the vast divide between Guinn's
methodology and that of the FBI's crime lab, one need but read The
Basis for Compositional Lead Comparisons, an article by Charles Peters
of the FBI's Materials Analysis Unit, published in the July, 2002
issue of Forensic Science Communications, and available on the FBI's
website. Peters explains: "Years of analysis in the FBI Laboratory
have demonstrated that the distinctiveness of a melt is defined not
only by the number of elements measured but also by the relative
scarcity of other alloys in that melt. Not all measured elements are
equally effective at discriminating among lead sources, however. In
general, for most lead products, the relative source discrimination
power of the measured elements decreases in the following order:
copper, arsenic, antimony, bismuth, and silver (Peele et al. 1991).
Tin is not included in this list because in many lead sources it is
not present at detectable levels. However, when tin is present, it
provides excellent discrimination among melts of lead. Antimony,
specified by the ammunition manufacturers, is alloyed with lead in
order to harden the bullets. The other elements are present in trace
amounts and can vary from one product to another." Note that Peters
considers both copper, which Guinn found did not match, and arsenic,
which Guinn inexplicably failed to test, more reliable indicators than
antimony, which Guinn upheld as the only element that mattered. From
this it seems clear that, should they have been forced to testify, and
encouraged to tell the truth, the FBI's crime lab employees would have
told the HSCA that the stretcher bullet and wrist fragments did not
match, and that the single-bullet theory, which their former Director
J. Edgar Hoover never believed anyhow, was bunkum. This brings us
back to the question of why Guinn and Guinn alone was called.
Should one think I'm being a nit-picker in the paragraphs above, and
assume that Guinn had found his own reasons not to trust arsenic as an
indicator, and his own reasons to think a single match was sufficient
to pronounce that two fragments were highly probable to have come from
the same source, one should read the words of Guinn himself, published
both before and after his stint as HSCA consultant. In Forensic
Neutron Activation Analysis of Bullet Lead Specimens, a report co-
written by Guinn in 1970, arsenic was one of the three elements
tested. In Activation Analysis Vol. 2, published 1990, Guinn, perhaps
inadvertently, discussed arsenic and undercut his testimony before the
HSCA. While discussing the best way to test bullet lead, he proposed
that one first test his three favorites (antimony, silver, and
copper). He then states: "If this fast method clearly shows that
none of the victim specimens match any of the specimens associated
with a suspect, in elemental composition, no further analyses are
needed. However, if one or more of the victim specimens appears to
match one or more of the suspect samples, an additional analysis is
called for...to add a fourth element (AS-arsenic) to the comparison."
He then discusses other elements that can be tested, including tin,
and then pronounces "If one is to conclude that two BL (bullet lead)
or SSP specimens "match" one another to the extent that, to a high
degree of probability, they had a common lead-melt origin, they must
"match" one another in their concentrations of each of a number of
elements measured to a respectable precision, and not exhibit any
significant mismatches... For a variety of reasons, it is presently
not possible to calculate a numerical probability that any two
specimens had a common lead-melt origin. Instead, assuming that they
do not mismatch in any element, but only match one another in one or
two measured elements, one usually merely states that they might have
had a common origin; with three matching elements, that they probably
had a common origin; and with four, five, or six matching elements,
that there is a very high probability (approaching "certainty") that
they had a common origin." Later, in this chapter, Guinn trumpets that
his bullet lead testing procedures have "been used to advantage in
many hundreds of criminal cases...including some very well known cases
(e.g. the President John F. Kennedy assassination)." Sorry, but I have
to ask--to whose advantage, exactly?
While I can't excuse Guinn's actions, I have uncovered a possible
innocent explanation for Guinn's mistakes, one that moves him from the
category of deliberate liar to mere screw-up. In early tests of
bullet lead, Guinn and others discovered there was an apparent
conformity between bullets in the same box, and sought to find
practical applications for their discovery. Over time, the courts came
to accept the value of bullet lead analysis and the FBI began
testifying that one bullet most probably came from the same box as
another. This allowed prosecutors to convict suspects even when no
gun was found. The problem, as outlined by William Tobin and the
National Academy of Sciences, was that little research was done on how
bullets were actually made and distributed, and that, when one studied
these things, one could only conclude that virtually indistinguishable
bullets were likely to end up in boxes of ammunition on opposite sides
of the country. In his research on Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition,
however, Guinn found that the bullets within the same box had no
apparent conformity. This led him to believe that the slight
conformity between the wrist fragment and the magic bullet had
significance, as other bullets from its box would be unlikely to match
on antimony. The problem was that there was NO REASON to assume the
wrist fragment bullet came from the same box as the magic bullet.
Quite literally, then, Guinn was thinking inside the box when he
should have been thinking outside the box!
Or maybe he was just lying. I hesitate to pass judgment on the man.
All I know for sure is that his conclusions about the magic bullet
before the HSCA were wrong. In July, 2006, Dr.s Erik Randich and
Patrick Grant published an article in the Journal of Forensic
Sciences, describing a study they'd conducted with the help of Tom
Pinkston. They used cross-sections of bullets to demonstrate that
antimony concentrations were not standard throughout bullet lead, even
within the same bullet, and that one would have to have used samples
far larger than those used by Guinn before coming to any conclusions
whether or not a fragment could have come from the same bullet as
another fragment. They also found that other full-metal jacketed
ammunition contained similar levels of antimony as the ammunition
fired in Oswald's rifle. Their conclusion reads: "We therefore
assert that, from our perspectives of standard metallurgical practice
and statistical assessment of the fundamental NAA measurements a
conclusion of material evidence for only two bullets in the questioned
JFK assassination specimens has no forensic basis. Although
collateral information from the overall investigation might very well
narrow the choices, as stand-alone primary evidence, the recovered
bullet fragments could be reflective of anywhere between two and five
different rounds fired in Dealey Plaza on that day. Only the near-
complete mass of CE-399, the stretcher bullet, precludes the
conclusion of one to five rounds. Moreover, the fragments need not
necessarily have originated from MC ammunition. Indeed, the antimony
compositions of the evidentiary specimens are consistent with any
number of jacketed ammunitions containing hardened lead."
In May, 2007, a similar article by Spiegleman, Tobin et al in the
Annals of Applied Statistics confirmed Randich and Grant's
conclusions, and disclosed that they had repeated Guinn's tests on
random Mannlicher-Carcano bullets. Not surprisingly, given Guinn's
results, they'd found that one of the thirty random bullets used in
their study was a close match to one of the assassination fragments.
This news even made the Washington Post.
Anthony Marsh
> David:
> Very few people actually understand what is going on here in toto,
> First, quite obviously there is now and never was any forensic evidence
> for anything other than 2 shots which hit.
>
> Your approach is certainly noteworthy.
>
> However, in deference to those who have legitimately pursued an analysis
> of Guinn's work, the question is, Can the NAA alone be used to determine
> the number of bullets which hit from the lead evidence alone. That is
> the question Guinn tried to answer, and the question legitimate studies
> like Rahn/Sturdivan, Randich/Grant attempted to answer.
>
No, that is NOT the question Guinn was tasked to answer and it is an
inappropriate question to pose. At the time that the WC was preparing its
report, it believed that all three shots hit the victims. Three shots,
three hits, exactly as the FBI said. No one was trying to exclude a third
bullet. The HSCA wanted Guinn to analyze the fragments and bullets to see
what they could reveal. Can the crime scene fragments be linked to a
bullet or fragment which is ballistically linked to Oswald's rifle. Are
there any fragments or bullets which could not have come from Oswald's
rifle?
> What might be termed illegitimate studies, such as Spiegelman, et al,
> which resulted to scientific duplicity in order to cover their butts
Nice try at killing the messenger, but what you are really saying is that
your pet theory should be immune from criticism. Unfortunately for you
science does not work that way.
claviger
A ballistics expert crossed this bridge a long time ago. He consulted with
metallurgical experts and ammo companies at the time and came to the
conclusion CABL analysis alone would not be able to solve this issue.
However, copper analysis would be determinate. The Clark Panel on Medical
Evidence requested scrapings from the entrance wound on the back of the
skull. They had been promised all medical evidence would be made available
to them. Their request was denied by the government, which raises the
obvious question of why was it denied? If the copper particles match the
6.5mm FMJ then this would bolster the theory LHO did all the shooting.
This was a lost opportunity to eleminate a second shooter. By denying the
Clark Panel request we are given cause to wonder if the scrapings did NOT
match the 6.5 copper jacket. What other reason would the government have
to deny this request for available evidence? My guess is the scrapings
would be a match for the copper used in the .223 FMJ.
Anthony Marsh
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e49bc952b950dad
>
>
> =================================================
>
>
> http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html
>
>
> Gee, what a shocker! A CTer actually disagrees with Bugliosi and the
> "LN" scenario!
>
> Never would have imagined a thing like that occurring in a million
> years.
>
> Gary Aguilar, as expected, spends an inordinate amount of time trying
> to prop up the idea that Guinn's NAA data is totally invalid. The
> truth is, of course, that the NAA analysis is (and always has been)
> merely corroborative in nature and is actually completely unneeded in
> order to determine the very-likely origin of the small bullet
> fragments associated with the JFK case.
>
Sure you can it by voodoo is you wish, but some people prefer science.
> For, I still want to know what the odds are of ZERO pieces of any non-
> Oswald bullets (large enough to be tested via traditional ballistics
> means, that is) showing up anywhere (car, hospital, victims) and yet
> still have bullets from any non-Oswald guns striking any victims in
> that limousine?
>
False premise. You have no fragments left in JFK's torso to test.
We know that some fragments were lost, some were never recovered and
some may have been destroyed.
> The ONLY bullets/fragments large enough to be tested ballistically are
> linked irrevocably to Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano Rifle #C2766. This
> is a FACT that cannot be denied...no matter how many CTers show up in
> the future to try and dispute this irreversible fact.
>
Stipulated.
> And that irreversible fact about the bullets and fragments is an
> absolutely incredible fact IF OTHER GUNS WERE INVOLVED IN HITTING THE
> VICTIMS TOO. (Don't you think?)
>
No, we do not. A different bullet could have gone through JFK's torso
without leaving any fragments behind to test and then exited the limo.
> Is there anyone out there who thinks it's actually LIKELY, given the
> above-mentioned fact about the bullet evidence, for multiple non-C2766
> guns to have been involved in the assassination? If anyone thinks such
> a scenario IS "likely", they must be living in a different galaxy.
>
Poisoning The Well. You would have made a good living working for the
Spanish Inquisition. Your position would be that anyone who dissents
from the Church is a heretic and anything a heretic says is not true.
> Common sense alone solves the bullet "mystery" (which isn't a mystery
> at all, of course, if you're a reasonable person).
>
Common sense said the Earth is flat. Some of us prefer science.
> And I'm guessing that the chances were mighty, mighty low indeed for
> Dr. Guinn to have arrived at a "2 Bullets From C2766" conclusion in
> 1977-78, even based on 1970s standards, IF MULTIPLE OTHER TYPES OF
> BULLETS/GUNS had really been in the bullet mix that Guinn examined for
> the HSCA.
>
Not at all. The evidence may still be in the bodies, or lost in the
limousine, or thrown away, or pocketed by investigators.
> That's yet another "absolutely incredible" one-gun-favoring conclusion
> if THREE different guns had actually fired bullets that struck JFK &
> JBC on 11/22/63 (as almost all anti-SBT advocates MUST believe, due to
> several factors).
>
> So, per those anti-SBTers, bullets from THREE different guns (at
> least!) entered the victims and yet the only pieces of bullet large
> enough to be tested ballistically (in order to exclude or include
> Oswald's C2766) just happened to be a whole bullet and two fragments
> from that exact gun--C2766.
>
You do not always find all the bullets fired in a crime.
> (Is this truly higher math....or brain surgery? To me, it's obvious.
> But to many CTers, it's completely up in the air. Go figure.)
>
> Regarding CE399.......
>
> I thinks it's quite humorous that many CTers have "switched" to a "The
> Bullet Was Switched Instead Of Planted" mindset with respect to CE399
> (as Dr. Aguilar mentions having occurred over the last several
> years).
>
> Maybe it's akin to David Lifton's conspiratorial mindset -- i.e., if
> one theory falls flat, just move on to the next wholly-unsupportable
> one.
>
> Mr. Lifton has seemingly utilized that motto on various occasions
> since his mind-numbing piece of tripe called "Best Evidence" was
> released and gobbled up with glee by a lot of CT-Kooks in 1980 and
> 1981.
>
> But the idea of a "switched" bullet is every bit as silly as a
> "planted" 399....if for no other reason, it just about totally
> demolishes ANOTHER long-held belief of the anti-SBT CTers -- that
> being: the belief by theorists that NO BULLET (399 or otherwise) could
> have ended up in the near-perfect condition that 399 was in after
> being discovered on Governor Connally's stretcher by Darrell
> Tomlinson.
>
In fact the WC considered that CE 399 could have made some, but not all
the torso wounds and come out looking so good.
> But the "switched" theory includes a WHOLE, INTACT, and (per most
> CTers I've encountered who love this "switched" theory) POINTY-NOSED
> bullet being found by Tomlinson instead of CE399.
>
> So, per that "switched" scenario, I guess a bullet remained pretty
> much INTACT and (just exactly like CE399) suffered no damage at all to
> the "business end of the bullet--the tip" (to use the verbatim words
> of Dr. Gary Aguilar from the above-linked article), because that
> "pointy" bullet was still "pointy-nosed" when discovered by Tomlinson
> (per many conspiracists).
>
> It makes me wonder HOW those same CTers can possibly accept the idea
> of a pointy-nosed bullet remaining "pointy-nosed" after having done
> THE VERY SAME DAMAGE TO GOVERNOR CONNALLY that CE399 is said to have
> done per the Warren Commission and the HSCA?
>
Maybe they do not require that bullet to do exactly the same damage as
WC defenders require for CE 399.
> Or do those "switched"-favoring CTers think that the "pointy" bullet
> wasn't really the bullet that was inside John Connally either? Was
> THAT bullet "planted", and then "switched" for Oswald's 399?
>
> Seems to me it's a "six of one, half-dozen of the other" type of
> argument here. Either a pointy bullet remained intact and without a
> crushed nose after going through Connally's body and ended up on that
> stretcher inside Parkland Hospital....or CE399 did. And the best
> evidence is that JBC was hit by just a SINGLE bullet, not two or three
> missiles.
>
Humes and the other doctors thought that Connally was hit by two
different bullets.
Anthony Marsh
> Those defending Guinn's findings miss the important fact that not only
> were Guinn's conclusions based on insufficient science, but that they
> were 100% WRONG based on the available science. Anyone--Rahn,
> Sturdivan, Fiorentino, etc--trying to revive confidence in his
> findings needs to find bullet fragments from the same bullet as
> diverse as those of CE 399 and the wrist fragment, before anyone can
> take them seriously. Get to it.
>
>
> From patspeer.com, chapter 11:
>
> If one looks at Guinn's results, one realizes there is a surprising
> lack of uniformity in the make-up of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets, both
> from bullet to bullet and box to box. This is because the type of
> ammunition used in the gun believed to be Oswald's was made from the
> melted-down lead of other bullets. When one looks even closer at
That is not the correct objection and factually wrong. Western used their
normal process to produce those lots. They started with virgin lead and
added some recycled hardened lead which will include previously produced
bullets and sometimes battery plates. They did not start with only
melted-down lead from other bullets.
> Guinn's analysis, one finds that his interpretation of his test
> results leaves even more to be desired. Since Guinn believed that
> similar counts in parts per million of certain elements could leave an
> identifiable fingerprint of exact bullets, and that antimony, silver,
> and copper were the most reliable of these elements, let's make a
> comparison between three sets of bullets on these elements, and
> Guinn's subsequent conclusions.
>
Unfortunately Guinn did not pay attention to the other elements and
based his analysis only on the levels of antimony.
> Numbers reflect the counts of the two samples in parts per million.
>
> A vs. B. 647-602 antimony, 8.6-7.9 silver, and 44-40 copper.
>
> C vs. D, 833-797 antimony, 9.8-7.9 silver, and 994-58 copper.
>
> E vs. F, 732-730 antimony, 15.9-15.3 silver, and 23-21 copper.
>
> So which two samples were described by Guinn as being from the same
> bullet?
>
> Well, that's actually a trick question, as A vs. B actually represents
> FOUR samples, a fragment found in Kennedy's brain, two fragments found
> on the floor of the limousine, and the nose of the bullet found on the
> front seat. And yet notice how uniform they seem to be. One might
> actually conclude they are probably from the same bullet. And Guinn
> did. Well, since they were so uniform and since Guinn also concluded
> the wrist fragments came from the magic bullet, then E vs. F must be
> the comparison between the magic bullet and the wrist fragment, right?
>
There is no scientific basis to prove which bullet the fragments came from.
Government scientists have a knack of coming up with the results that
the government wants them to.
As Guinn said to some reporters, it is possible that someone switched
the fragments and he would not have been able to tell the difference.
Except for the fact that the antimony levels in the WCC are so low that it
is unhardened lead.
John Fiorentino
"Anyone--Rahn,
> Sturdivan, Fiorentino, etc--trying to revive confidence in his
> findings needs to find bullet fragments from the same bullet as
> diverse as those of CE 399 and the wrist fragment, before anyone can
> take them seriously. Get to it."
I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand this.
"In July, 2006, Dr.s Erik Randich and
> Patrick Grant published an article in the Journal of Forensic
> Sciences, describing a study they'd conducted......"
"In May, 2007, a similar article by Spiegleman, Tobin et al in the
> Annals of Applied Statistics confirmed Randich and Grant's
> conclusions,"
Sorry, but R/G has little to do with Spiegelman, et al. One, R/G is a
legitimate study (whether you buy the conclusions or not). Spiegelman, et
al was poorly contrived and poorly communicated, as my rebuttal shows.
"This news even made the Washington Post."
Yes indeed, and the "news" that their study was essentially "poopie" did
not.
John F.
David Von Pein
>>> "Humes and the other doctors thought that Connally was hit by two
different bullets." <<<
As if the opinion of a doctor thousands of miles from Dallas (and from
Connally) matters at all.
Why is HUMES being propped up here with regard to CONNALLY'S injuries?
Crazy, man.
Connally's own doctor, Shaw, told the nation (on Live TV) that Connally
had been struck by "one bullet".
But I guess Dr. Humes knows more than Shaw.
Go figure. ~shrug~
John Fiorentino
You are all wet about this subject. I have NO "pet theories."
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1u2dnaFavOelU1va...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Humes and the other doctors thought that Connally was hit by two
> different bullets." <<<
>
>
>
> As if the opinion of a doctor thousands of miles from Dallas (and from
> Connally) matters at all.
>
> Why is HUMES being propped up here with regard to CONNALLY'S injuries?
> Crazy, man.
>
Because the WC called in all the doctors to try to see if they could
figure out the shooting sequence. Humes and all the other doctors and
most of the staff believed Connally was hit by two bullets.
> Connally's own doctor, Shaw, told the nation (on Live TV) that Connally
> had been struck by "one bullet".
>
You conveniently leave out Shaw's WC testimony to confuse the innocent
lurkers. I provide it below. Shaw testified under oath that it could
have been one bullet, or two, or possibly even three. He could not be sure.
Dr. SHAW. Yes, and this is still a possibility. But I don't feel that
it is
the only possibility.
Senator COOPER. Why do you say you don't think it is the only
possibility?
What causes you now to say that it is the location.
Dr. SHAW. This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will
be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused
by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the
bullets until today, and we still do not know which bullet actually
inflicted the wound on Governor Connally.
Mr. DULLES. Or whether it was one or two wounds?
Dr. SHAW. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. Or two bullets?
Dr. SHAW. Yes; or three.
Mr. DULLES. Why do you say three?
Dr. SHAW. He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest,
a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes; we haven't come to the wound of the thigh, yet,
have we?
Mr. McCLOY. You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were
caused by one bullet?
Dr. SHAW. I have no firm opinion.
Mr. McCLOY. That is right.
Dr. SHAW. Asking me this now if it was true. If you had asked me a
month ago I would have.
Mr. DULLES. Could they have been caused by one bullet, in your
opinion? Dr. SHAW. They could.
Mr. McCLOY. I gather that what the witness is saying is that it is
possible that they might have been caused by one bullet. But that he has
no firm opinion now that they were.
Mr. DULLES. As I understand it too. Is our understanding correct?
Dr. SHAW. That is correct.
Senator COOPER. When you say all three are your referring to the
wounds you have just described to the chest, the wound in the wrist, and
also the wound in the thigh?
Dr. SHAW. Yes.
Senator COOPER. It was possible?
Dr. SHAW. Our original assumption, Senator Cooper, was that the
Governor was approximately in this attitude at the time he was--
Senator COOPER. What attitude is that now?
Dr. SHAW. This is an attitude sitting in a jump seat as we know he
was, upright, with his right forearm held across the lower portion of the
chest. In this position, the trajectory of the bullet could have caused
the wound of entrance, the wound of exit, struck his wrist and proceeded
on into the left thigh. But although this is a possibility, I can't give a
firm opinion that this is the actual way in which it occurred.
> But I guess Dr. Humes knows more than Shaw.
>
I guess Shaw knows more than you do.
> Go figure. ~shrug~
>
Typical WC defender distorting the evidence.
Anthony Marsh
>
> A ballistics expert crossed this bridge a long time ago. He consulted with
> metallurgical experts and ammo companies at the time and came to the
> conclusion CABL analysis alone would not be able to solve this issue.
> However, copper analysis would be determinate. The Clark Panel on Medical
> Evidence requested scrapings from the entrance wound on the back of the
> skull. They had been promised all medical evidence would be made available
There are no copper scrapings from the back of the skull.
jas
History" will probably remain the JFK Bible for many decades to come,
despite the CTers who have a desire to pick apart every evidence- based
sentence within it."
DVP, yep, and VB has, as you know, acknowledged in his book that his book
will be picked apart by CTers. It doesn't bother him in the least. Unlike
the ever-changing and alternative theories CTers have to come with time
and again to keep their own interest and try to dupe the public and get
lots of book sales, VB's book and the facts stated within are the truth,
and set in stone.
I just finished it myself a week ago, and I must say, I am completely
amazed at the research and detail he put into it. It's truly a
masterpiece. The end notes alone could be several books by themselves! I
think I will read it again.
I also like how it makes the CTers squirm!
David Von Pein
>>> "You conveniently leave out Shaw's WC testimony to confuse the
innocent lurkers. I provide it below. Shaw testified under oath that it
could have been one bullet, or two, or possibly even three. He could not
be sure." <<<
And yet we see him on Live TV on 11/22 saying that Connally was struck by
"one bullet".
Go figure.
Anthony Marsh
He did not know the whole story on 11/22/63.
> Go figure.
>
And on 11/22/63 Kennedy's doctors said the throat wound was an entrance.
Go figure.
David Von Pein
Sure he did. He got it right on 11/22...because Connally WAS only hit
by "one bullet".
Anthony Marsh
Shaw admitted that he changed his mind.
David Von Pein
>>> "Shaw admitted that he changed his mind." <<<
Too bad. He had it right the first time.
BTW, adding an extra bullet only makes ANY anti-SBT theory more absurd
and complicated and impossible than any such anti-SBT theory already
is (which is pretty darned impossible even via a 3-bullet substitute,
instead of the 4-bullet replacement that's required if 2 bullets went
into Connally).
Somehow, per many CTers, FOUR separate bullets magically lined
themselves up so that this alignment was such that the WC could think
that just ONE missile did all of that damage. (Plus, all of those
bullets disappeared too--naturally--as with every unwanted bullet born
within the CT ranks.)
"The Magic Bullet Theory (Times Four)" is what that is, my friend.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "Shaw admitted that he changed his mind." <<<
>
>
> Too bad. He had it right the first time.
>
> BTW, adding an extra bullet only makes ANY anti-SBT theory more absurd
You make things seem more absurd by creating strawman arguments. The FBI
did not need any damn SBT. The SS did not need a SBT. The WC did not
need a SBT until Specter realized there was a timing problem. If the WC
had stuck with the official FBI conclusion you right now would be
arguing for three shots, three hits and lambasting the HSCA for
inventing the SBT.
> and complicated and impossible than any such anti-SBT theory already
> is (which is pretty darned impossible even via a 3-bullet substitute,
> instead of the 4-bullet replacement that's required if 2 bullets went
> into Connally).
>
Not necessary. Humes et al solved it by having the first bullet go
through Kennedy and Connally and the second bullet bullet hitting Connally.
> Somehow, per many CTers, FOUR separate bullets magically lined
> themselves up so that this alignment was such that the WC could think
> that just ONE missile did all of that damage. (Plus, all of those
> bullets disappeared too--naturally--as with every unwanted bullet born
> within the CT ranks.)
>
Being anti-SBT does not require 4 bullets.
And no one I know of needs 4 bullets to cause all the Kennedy and
Connally torso wounds to duplicate what you think one bullet did.