Ken Rahn, Rick Randich and Pat Grant spoke on neutron acitvation analysis and JFK in Frisco [Revised]
garag...@gmail.com
On July 15th, 2006 I hosted a small gathering in San Francisco to hear
Ken Rahn and two Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists discuss neutron
activation analysis and the Kennedy case.
I invited Rahn because he, with Larry Sturdivan, has written that
Vincent' P. Guinn's assessment of NAA in the Kennedy case is rock
solid. I invited Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Pat Grant, Ph.D. to present
their just-published paper because they argue that Guinn, Rahn and
Sturdivan are just plain wrong.
Rahn, who declined my invitation to square off with the fellows from
LLL, just as he'd previously declined an invitation to speak when they
gave a similar presentation in Washington, D.C. last year, spoke via
video - that is, I projected the NAA talk he gave in Pittsburgh at the
Wecht conference.
Since we only had Rahn in camera, Larry Sturdivan was good enough to
agree to pass along his criticisms/observations of the Randich and
Grant paper, "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead
Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives." [J Forensic
Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4 doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x
Available online at: www.blackwell-synergy.com]
To get an idea of how important some Warren loyalists believe this
evidence is, let me quote from an article written by Larry Sturdivan
and Ken Rahn:
"The NAA eliminated all conspiracy theories that involved additional
shooters or planted bullets. The NAA proved that none of the fragments
were planted, that the rifle was fired that day (not planted), and that
the locations of KENNEDY’s head wounds and back wound were not needed
in order to get the right answer for the assassination. It supported
the single-bullet theory and thus helped to provide the best-documented
shooting scenario to date. It knits together the core physical evidence
into an airtight case against Lee OSWALD. It is, thus, the key to
resolving the major controversies in the JFK assassination and putting
the matter to rest." [Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry,
Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 215–-222]
Two years ago, Sturdivan and Rahn wrote this article and another one
in support of work originally done by Vincent P. Guinn, Ph.D. They
argued that fragments recovered after the assassination were inarguably
from Oswald's bullets because NAA had proven the fragments to have come
from Mannlicher Carcano bullets and, moreover, that MC bullet lead had
rare properties that allowed the recovered fragments to be reliably
matched to but two bullets fired from Oswald's rifle. These conclusions
were first questioned by Wallace Milam (google, "Blakey's linchpin"),
and again by Art Snyder, Ph.D., a senior physicist at Stanford Linear
Accelerator, who apparently debunked the statistical underpinnings of
the Guinn/Rahn/Sturdivan thesis 8 years ago in *Skeptic Magazine.*
(Vol. 6(4):51-63 - available by request)
Randich and Grant gave impressive presentations based on what
certainly appears to be a thorough understanding of, among other
things, the metallurgy of bullet fragments, JFK's and others.
The concluding paragraph of their published article reads as follows:
"We therefore assert that, from perspectives of standard
metallurgical practice and statistical assessment of the fundamental
NAA measurements (and despite the opinion of Rahn and Sturdivan that
their assessment is definitive and puts the matter to rest), 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 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 unhardened lead."
In other words, MC lead is in no way unique such that fragments can
be reliably matched to one another. The myth that such a match can be
made was started by Vincent Guinn and propagated by Rahn and Sturdivan,
none of whom are familiar with elemental metallurgy, which is the sine
qua non here.
Erik Randich, by contrast, is a metallurgist of high repute and Pat
Grant was once one of Vincent P. Guinn's graduate students and bears
his old (and now deceased) professor no malice. Another difference
between between Randich and Grant and Rahn and Sturdivan is that
neither of the former has an opinion on the conspiracy question; both
of the latter decidedly do.
How then is one to decide the merits of the completing claims without
a Ph.D. in the appropriate discipline? A careful reading of both sides
should do the trick for most people. But even without doing that, I
think one would get a pretty good idea by just comparing the footnotes
in the two papers Rahn and Sturdivan wrote with the Randich and Grant
paper: All told there are 20 footnotes in both articles Sturdivan and
Rahn wrote (just five in Larry's), the most recent citation in either
article is 27 years old. Randich and Grant have 36 citations, the most
recent is 2 years old. Rahn has argued that more recent literature is
irrelevant but Randich and Grant make a pretty convicning case the
opposite is true. [Even if it truly were irrelevant, a proper study
would cite it if only to explain why seemingly pertinent literature
isn't.]
To be fair, Larry Sturdivan, who holds a masters but no Ph.D., has
argued that those who've questioned his NAA work don't have the
statistical background he does to refute him. That's not true.
Stanford's Art Snyder, Ph.D. is no slouch when it comes to statistics,
despite the fact his Ph.D. is in physics. But Snyder isn't alone, as
Stu Wexler has pointed out.
Texas A & M professor of statistics Cliff Spiegelman (Ph.D. statistics,
applied mathematics, Northwestern University) has made the case that
the neutron activation analysis data in the Kennedy case do not support
the claims Sturdivan, Guinn and Rahn have made. [see:
http://www.clarkson.edu/news/print.php?id=940, or call professor
Spiegelman at Texas A & M (http://www.stat.tamu.edu/info.php?cliff ).
Cliff Spiegelman - (979) 845-3141, Fax: (979) 845-3144.]
Cliff Spiegelman is knowledgeable and articulate and freely admits he
does not always agree with Erik Randich. But on the Kennedy case,
Spiegelman agrees that Sturdivan, Rahn and Guinn are juar plain wrong.
Or so he said when I called him.
Perhaps the best way to really figure out who's got the beef would be
for the various advocates to advocate in open discussion - on-line,
even. I'm sure I could get pro-conspiracy, Art Snyder, and Warren- and
conspiracy-agnostics, Randich and Grant, to go along.
What do you suppose the chances are that Warren loyalists and
anti-conspiracists Rahn and Sturdivan would do it?
Gary
lazu...@webtv.net
cdddraftsman
Lowry
>
> Two years ago, Sturdivan and Rahn wrote this article and another
one
> in support of work originally done by Vincent P. Guinn, Ph.D. They
> argued that fragments recovered after the assassination were
inarguably
> from Oswald's bullets because NAA had proven the fragments to have
come
> from Mannlicher Carcano bullets and, moreover, that MC bullet lead
had
> rare properties that allowed the recovered fragments to be reliably
> matched to but two bullets fired from Oswald's rifle. These
conclusions
> were first questioned by Wallace Milam (google, "Blakey's linchpin"),
> and again by Art Snyder, Ph.D., a senior physicist at Stanford Linear
> Accelerator, who apparently debunked the statistical underpinnings of
>
blown
> > from the water and that the G/R/S thesis was very much intact . How did
> > you arrive at this rather far fetched conclusion ?
>
> the Guinn/Rahn/Sturdivan thesis 8 years ago in *Skeptic Magazine.*
> (Vol. 6(4):51-63 - available by request)
>
> Randich and Grant gave impressive presentations based on what
> certainly appears to be a thorough understanding of, among other
> things, the metallurgy of bullet fragments, JFK's and others.
>
> > G/R/S conclusions , thousands of long winded , winding passages that
> > all eventually come to the same conclusions . I'm already getting a feeling
> > and that is something Prof. Rahn warns against , since I have no background
> > in NAA , so I have nothing else to go on , that this outcome , is maybe being
> > influenced by some other , outside force , besides science . What those
> > are , have yet to be determined .
>
>
> The concluding paragraph of their published article reads as follows:
>
> "We therefore assert that, from perspectives of standard
> metallurgical practice and statistical assessment of the fundamental
> NAA measurements (and despite the opinion of Rahn and Sturdivan that
> their assessment is definitive and puts the matter to rest), 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 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 unhardened lead."
>
> > Another amazing co-incident ? that after reflection ? turns out to be wrong ?
> > based on faulty logic ? How many times before , have we seen this happen in
> > this case ?
>
> In other words, MC lead is in no way unique such that fragments can
> be reliably matched to one another. The myth that such a match can be
> made was started by Vincent Guinn and propagated by Rahn and Sturdivan,
> none of whom are familiar with elemental metallurgy, which is the sine
> qua non here.
>
> > is too strong a word here , to be used , so early in this controversy .
> > Wouldn't you agree ? I think G/R/S have a pretty good grip on elemental
> > metalluragy , which is a prerequisite , before doing any further analysis .
> > I don't have to remind you , that the past has many instances were men
> > that didn't even have a degree in a particular field , outshown so called
> > leading authority's on a particular subject thru the use of multi-various
> > analytical techniques and common sense which proved superior .
>
>
> Erik Randich, by contrast, is a metallurgist of high repute and Pat
> Grant was once one of Vincent P. Guinn's graduate students and bears
> his old (and now deceased) professor no malice. Another difference
> between between Randich and Grant and Rahn and Sturdivan is that
> neither of the former has an opinion on the conspiracy question; both
> of the latter decidedly do.
>
> > meant to say was " he bears his old professor no malice that he's willing
> > to admit to , or that he has voiced publicly , isn't it ? I was also surprised you
> > used the term ' high repute ' so loosley . In a case were we've seen highly
> > reputed authors , on any number of subjects , go by the wayside , so often , I
> > wonder if this isn't , just another case of ' The cold fusion blues ' ? Further
> > more , you make it sound as if G/R/S had come to a conclusion , before they
> > they did their testing and tailored their conclusions to fit the facts , rather in
> > opposite to what really happend .
> > With the propensity , for people , especially scientists , to express
> > their opinions , in order not to be left out of the limelight , must be
> > taken into serious consideration here . It's an x-factor not to be under
> > estimated .
>
> Perhaps the best way to really figure out who's got the beef would be
> for the various advocates to advocate in open discussion - on-line,
> even. I'm sure I could get pro-conspiracy, Art Snyder, and Warren- and
> conspiracy-agnostics, Randich and Grant, to go along.
>
> > conspiracists in the country , to come swarming out of the woodworks .
>
>
> What do you suppose the chances are that Warren loyalists and
> anti-conspiracists Rahn and Sturdivan would do it?
>
> > amount , of hot air in him , wins ? For the past 40 years plus , the critical
> > community has relied upon making it's case thru allegations , sloppy jurnalism
> > and outright fabrication . It takes along time to imploy proper investigative
> > procedures to debunk any ' new ' claim . If the past leads us to the same
> > conclusion , this is another in a long line , that by now , stretches to the moon .
> > If I had to cousel them I would tell them to stay away , until such a time , that
> > a consensus had been reached on the major technical issues , if ever that
> > happens .
>
> Gary
>
> > Tom Lowry ..........cdddra...@yahoo.com
cdddraftsman
>
> Two years ago, Sturdivan and Rahn wrote this article and another one
> in support of work originally done by Vincent P. Guinn, Ph.D. They
> argued that fragments recovered after the assassination were inarguably
> from Oswald's bullets because NAA had proven the fragments to have come
> from Mannlicher Carcano bullets and, moreover, that MC bullet lead had
> rare properties that allowed the recovered fragments to be reliably
> matched to but two bullets fired from Oswald's rifle. These conclusions
> were first questioned by Wallace Milam (google, "Blakey's linchpin"),
> and again by Art Snyder, Ph.D., a senior physicist at Stanford Linear
> Accelerator, who apparently debunked the statistical underpinnings of
>
> > from the water and that the G/R/S thesis was very much intact . How did
> > you arrive at this rather far fetched conclusion ?
>
> (Vol. 6(4):51-63 - available by request)
>
> Randich and Grant gave impressive presentations based on what
> certainly appears to be a thorough understanding of, among other
> things, the metallurgy of bullet fragments, JFK's and others.
>
> > G/R/S conclusions , thousands of long winded , winding passages that
> > all eventually come to the same conclusions . I'm already getting a feeling
> > and that is something Prof. Rahn warns against , since I have no background
> > in NAA , so I have nothing else to go on , that this outcome , is maybe being
> > influenced by some other , outside force , besides science . What those
> > are , have yet to be determined .
>
>
>
> "We therefore assert that, from perspectives of standard
> metallurgical practice and statistical assessment of the fundamental
> NAA measurements (and despite the opinion of Rahn and Sturdivan that
> their assessment is definitive and puts the matter to rest), 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 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 unhardened lead."
>
> > Another amazing co-incident ? that after reflection ? turns out to be wrong ?
> > based on faulty logic ? How many times before , have we seen this happen in
> > this case ?
>
> be reliably matched to one another. The myth that such a match can be
> made was started by Vincent Guinn and propagated by Rahn and Sturdivan,
> none of whom are familiar with elemental metallurgy, which is the sine
> qua non here.
>
> > is too strong a word here , to be used , so early in this controversy .
> > Wouldn't you agree ? I think G/R/S have a pretty good grip on elemental
> > metalluragy , which is a prerequisite , before doing any further analysis .
> > I don't have to remind you , that the past has many instances were men
> > that didn't even have a degree in a particular field , outshown so called
> > leading authority's on a particular subject thru the use of multi-various
> > analytical techniques and common sense which proved superior .
>
>
> Grant was once one of Vincent P. Guinn's graduate students and bears
> his old (and now deceased) professor no malice. Another difference
> between between Randich and Grant and Rahn and Sturdivan is that
> neither of the former has an opinion on the conspiracy question; both
> of the latter decidedly do.
>
> > meant to say was " he bears his old professor no malice that he's willing
> > to admit to , or that he has voiced publicly , isn't it ? I was also surprised you
> > used the term ' high repute ' so loosley . In a case were we've seen highly
> > reputed authors , on any number of subjects , go by the wayside , so often , I
> > wonder if this isn't , just another case of ' The cold fusion blues ' ? Further
> > more , you make it sound as if G/R/S had come to a conclusion , before they
> > they did their testing and tailored their conclusions to fit the facts , rather in
> > opposite to what really happend .
>
>
> > With the propensity , for people , especially scientists , to express
> > their opinions , in order not to be left out of the limelight , must be
> > taken into serious consideration here . It's an x-factor not to be under
> > estimated .
>
>
>
> for the various advocates to advocate in open discussion - on-line,
> even. I'm sure I could get pro-conspiracy, Art Snyder, and Warren- and
> conspiracy-agnostics, Randich and Grant, to go along.
>
>
> > conspiracists in the country , to come swarming out of the woodworks .
>
>
> anti-conspiracists Rahn and Sturdivan would do it?
>
Kenneth A. Rahn
See comments interspersed below.
Ken Rahn
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154080013....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I know what is going on here. Gary's belief system about the assassination
is so threatened by the NAA that he is doing everything possible to knock it
down. If you read his post carefully, you see that it is full of smoke and
mirrors. He knows that if the NAA lives, his ideas die, and he would rather
kill off the NAA than carefully reexamine his ideas. So he goes about
hoodwinking people, whether deliberately or not. He has seized on Randich
and Grant as people of convenience. In reality, he has nothing.
> > The concluding paragraph of their published article reads as follows:
> >
> > "We therefore assert that, from perspectives of standard
> > metallurgical practice and statistical assessment of the fundamental
> > NAA measurements (and despite the opinion of Rahn and Sturdivan that
> > their assessment is definitive and puts the matter to rest), 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 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 unhardened lead."
> >
> > > How many jacketed ammunitions ? There are literally thousnds of
choices .
> > > Another amazing co-incident ? that after reflection ? turns out to be
wrong ?
> > > based on faulty logic ? How many times before , have we seen this
happen in
> > > this case ?
The cited paragraph fundamentally misrepresents the scenario of the JFK
assassination. We dealt with this kind of objection in our paper. They
conveniently gloss over that.
> > In other words, MC lead is in no way unique such that fragments can
> > be reliably matched to one another. The myth that such a match can be
> > made was started by Vincent Guinn and propagated by Rahn and Sturdivan,
> > none of whom are familiar with elemental metallurgy, which is the sine
> > qua non here.
> >
> > > Myth ? Another stretch ? I see your point of view though , I think
myth
> > > is too strong a word here , to be used , so early in this controversy
.
> > > Wouldn't you agree ? I think G/R/S have a pretty good grip on
elemental
> > > metalluragy , which is a prerequisite , before doing any further
analysis .
> > > I don't have to remind you , that the past has many instances were men
> > > that didn't even have a degree in a particular field , outshown so
called
> > > leading authority's on a particular subject thru the use of
multi-various
> > > analytical techniques and common sense which proved superior .
The importance of "metallurgy" is being greatly exaggerated by thos who wish
to tear down the NAA. It matters not what *might* happen in the vats. The
only thing that matters is the actual composition of the lead actually used,
and we have shown that it is very consistent over the four production runs.
It's as simple as that.
> >
> > Erik Randich, by contrast, is a metallurgist of high repute and Pat
> > Grant was once one of Vincent P. Guinn's graduate students and bears
> > his old (and now deceased) professor no malice. Another difference
> > between between Randich and Grant and Rahn and Sturdivan is that
> > neither of the former has an opinion on the conspiracy question; both
> > of the latter decidedly do.
> >
> > > You confuse the issue quite nicely . Good show . What you actually
> > > meant to say was " he bears his old professor no malice that he's
willing
> > > to admit to , or that he has voiced publicly , isn't it ? I was also
surprised you
> > > used the term ' high repute ' so loosley . In a case were we've seen
highly
> > > reputed authors , on any number of subjects , go by the wayside , so
often , I
> > > wonder if this isn't , just another case of ' The cold fusion blues '
? Further
> > > more , you make it sound as if G/R/S had come to a conclusion , before
they
> > > they did their testing and tailored their conclusions to fit the facts
, rather in
> > > opposite to what really happend .
Gary is using smoke and mirrors again. In his own smarmy way, he is
insinuating that Larry's and my beliefs about the assassination have colored
our scientific article. That is both insulting and wrong.
> >
> > How then is one to decide the merits of the completing claims without
> > a Ph.D. in the appropriate discipline? A careful reading of both sides
> > should do the trick for most people. But even without doing that, I
> > think one would get a pretty good idea by just comparing the footnotes
> > in the two papers Rahn and Sturdivan wrote with the Randich and Grant
> > paper: All told there are 20 footnotes in both articles Sturdivan and
> > Rahn wrote (just five in Larry's), the most recent citation in either
> > article is 27 years old. Randich and Grant have 36 citations, the most
> > recent is 2 years old. Rahn has argued that more recent literature is
> > irrelevant but Randich and Grant make a pretty convicning case the
> > opposite is true. [Even if it truly were irrelevant, a proper study
> > would cite it if only to explain why seemingly pertinent literature>
isn't.]
It is absurd to think one can draw conclusions about the merit of a
scientific article from the dates on its footnotes. Following Gary's
"logic," we could even draw the opposite conclusion from him, namely that
focusing too much on recent work could encourage unjustified revisionism.
> > To be fair, Larry Sturdivan, who holds a masters but no Ph.D., has
> > argued that those who've questioned his NAA work don't have the
> > statistical background he does to refute him. That's not true.
> > Stanford's Art Snyder, Ph.D. is no slouch when it comes to statistics,
> > despite the fact his Ph.D. is in physics. But Snyder isn't alone, as
> > Stu Wexler has pointed out.
> >
> > Texas A & M professor of statistics Cliff Spiegelman (Ph.D. statistics,
> > applied mathematics, Northwestern University) has made the case that
> > the neutron activation analysis data in the Kennedy case do notsupport
> > the claims Sturdivan, Guinn and Rahn have made. [see:
> > http://www.clarkson.edu/news/print.php?id=940, or call professor
> > Spiegelman at Texas A & M (http://www.stat.tamu.edu/info.php?cliff ).
> > Cliff Spiegelman - (979) 845-3141, Fax: (979) 845-3144.]
> >
> > Cliff Spiegelman is knowledgeable and articulate and freely admits he
> > does not always agree with Erik Randich. But on the Kennedy case,
> > Spiegelman agrees that Sturdivan, Rahn and Guinn are juar plain wrong.
> > Or so he said when I called him.
> >
> > > The real question to be asked , is would he stake his life on it ?
> > > With the propensity , for people , especially scientists , to express
> > > their opinions , in order not to be left out of the limelight , must
be
> > > taken into serious consideration here . It's an x-factor not to be
under
> > > estimated .
Ah, Gary's lists of "important" witnesses again! As if this is some sort of
popularity contest where the majority wins.
> >
> > Perhaps the best way to really figure out who's got the beef would be
> > for the various advocates to advocate in open discussion - on-line,
> > even. I'm sure I could get pro-conspiracy, Art Snyder, and Warren- and
> > conspiracy-agnostics, Randich and Grant, to go along.
> >
> > > Offer cold hot dogs and hot soda's , that should be enough for half
the
> > > conspiracists in the country , to come swarming out of the woodworks .
Right!
> > What do you suppose the chances are that Warren loyalists and
> > anti-conspiracists Rahn and Sturdivan would do it?
> >
> > > O'h , I get it now , another shouting match , perhaps ? He who has the
largest
> > > amount , of hot air in him , wins ? For the past 40 years plus , the
critical
> > > community has relied upon making it's case thru allegations , sloppy
jurnalism
> > > and outright fabrication . It takes along time to imploy proper
investigative
> > > procedures to debunk any ' new ' claim . If the past leads us to the
same
> > > conclusion , this is another in a long line , that by now , stretches
to the moon .
> > > If I had to cousel them I would tell them to stay away , until such a
time , that
> > > a consensus had been reached on the major technical issues , if ever
that
> > > happens .
Yes, that's what Gary wants--a shouting match that goes to the quickest on
their feet and the ones with the best debating skills. That is not the way
science is done, and we will not give it to him. We write articles to avoid
this sort of thing. Let him read the articles and study them. If he has an
open mind, he will see that Larry and I dealt with the core issues, but
Randich and Grant did not.
tomnln
Gary has never Refused to Debate his opposition.
YOU HAVE.
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:eadb6...@news4.newsguy.com...
garag...@gmail.com
cdddraftsman wrote:
> > > My reply's are in after > > I'll be as brief as possible . Tom Lowry
> >
> > shooters or planted bullets. The NAA proved that none of the fragments
> > were planted, that the rifle was fired that day (not planted), and that
> > the locations of KENNEDY's head wounds and back wound were not needed
> > in order to get the right answer for the assassination. It supported
> > the single-bullet theory and thus helped to provide the best-documented
> > shooting scenario to date. It knits together the core physical evidence
> > into an airtight case against Lee OSWALD. It is, thus, the key to
> > resolving the major controversies in the JFK assassination and putting
> > the matter to rest." [Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry,
> > Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 215--222]
I wrote:
> > Two years ago, Sturdivan and Rahn wrote this article and another one
> > in support of work originally done by Vincent P. Guinn, Ph.D. They
> > argued that fragments recovered after the assassination were inarguably
> > from Oswald's bullets because NAA had proven the fragments to have come
> > from Mannlicher Carcano bullets and, moreover, that MC bullet lead had
> > rare properties that allowed the recovered fragments to be reliably
> > matched to but two bullets fired from Oswald's rifle. These conclusions
> > were first questioned by Wallace Milam (google, "Blakey's linchpin"),
> > and again by Art Snyder, Ph.D., a senior physicist at Stanford Linear
> > Accelerator, who apparently debunked the statistical underpinnings of
> >
> > > ' Apparentely ' ? I got the distinct impression that Synder was blown
> > > from the water and that the G/R/S thesis was very much intact . How did
> > > you arrive at this rather far fetched conclusion ?
> >
I arrived at this "far fetched conclusion" by reading the to-and-fro
between Rahn/Sturdivan and Snyder. Snyder demolished them, which you'd
know if you'd followed the whole discussion rather than listen only to Ken
Rahn.
> > > I've seen many , many article's on metallurgy , that fully support the
> > > G/R/S conclusions , thousands of long winded , winding passages that
> > > all eventually come to the same conclusions .
I see. But none you'd care to quote; none you'd care to cite; and none
you'd care to discuss in detail, right?
>>>I'm already getting a feeling
> > > and that is something Prof. Rahn warns against , since I have no background
> > > in NAA , so I have nothing else to go on , that this outcome , is maybe being
> > > influenced by some other , outside force , besides science . What those
> > > are , have yet to be determined .
> >
Say, about that "feeling and that is something that Prof. Rahn warns
against," might it be, dare I say it, A CONSPIRACY afoot being run by
government scientists Randich and Grant intent on blowing away one of the
key struts out from under the government's case? Oooh, sounds scary!
> > The concluding paragraph of their published article reads as follows:
> >
[snip quote from Randich and Grant paper
> >
> > > How many jacketed ammunitions ? There are literally thousnds of choices .
> > > Another amazing co-incident ? that after reflection ? turns out to be wrong ?
> > > based on faulty logic ? How many times before , have we seen this happen in
> > > this case ?
Say what? You've read the paper, of course? Not.
> >
> > In other words, MC lead is in no way unique such that fragments can
> > be reliably matched to one another. The myth that such a match can be
> > made was started by Vincent Guinn and propagated by Rahn and Sturdivan,
> > none of whom are familiar with elemental metallurgy, which is the sine
> > qua non here.
> >
> > > Myth ? Another stretch ? I see your point of view though , I think myth
> > > is too strong a word here , to be used , so early in this controversy .
> > > Wouldn't you agree ?
No, I wouldn't. Myth is what it was when Guinn first proposed it nearly 30
years ago and it still is a myth.
But you apparently take exception to hyperbole, do you? How about this for
hyperbole: "It [Rahn/Strudivan's take on NAA] knits together the core
physical evidence into an airtight case against Lee OSWALD. It is, thus,
the key to resolving the major controversies in the JFK assassination and
putting the matter to rest." [Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 215--222] Let me guess: you don't think
this exaggerated at all, eh?
>> I think G/R/S have a pretty good grip on elemental
> > > metalluragy , which is a prerequisite , before doing any further analysis .
And precisely what was it that convinced you of their expertise in
metallurgy, the prerequisite? Certainly nothing they've written on the
subject, nothing in their background would suggest it and they've never
crowed about their credentials. So how did you arrive at your opinion.
> > > I don't have to remind you , that the past has many instances were men
> > > that didn't even have a degree in a particular field , outshown so called
> > > leading authority's on a particular subject thru the use of multi-various
> > > analytical techniques and common sense which proved superior .
> >
I'm sure you know what you're saying, even if no one else does. But if
you're saying that one needn't be degreed in a particular field to know
something valuable about it, of course you're right. In fact, I proved
that myself, in an essay at historymatters.com, entitled: HOW FIVE
INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK'S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG
[http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm]
> >
> > Erik Randich, by contrast, is a metallurgist of high repute and Pat
> > Grant was once one of Vincent P. Guinn's graduate students and bears
> > his old (and now deceased) professor no malice. Another difference
> > between between Randich and Grant and Rahn and Sturdivan is that
> > neither of the former has an opinion on the conspiracy question; both
> > of the latter decidedly do.
> >
> > > You confuse the issue quite nicely . Good show . What you actually
> > > meant to say was " he bears his old professor no malice that he's willing
> > > to admit to , or that he has voiced publicly , isn't it ?
Oh, you've seen into Pat Grant's soul, have you? During the conference
he told us he quite liked Guinn, but believed he was wrong on NAA. Is
one not allowed to have an honest difference of opinion with a former
teacher and have it be anything but malice?
I was also surprised you
> > > used the term ' high repute ' so loosley .
Oh, so you have researched Randich like I have and have come to a
different conclusion? Please share it with us!
In a case were we've seen highly
> > > reputed authors , on any number of subjects , go by the wayside , so often , I
> > > wonder if this isn't , just another case of ' The cold fusion blues ' ? Further
> > > more , you make it sound as if G/R/S had come to a conclusion , before they
> > > they did their testing and tailored their conclusions to fit the facts , rather in
> > > opposite to what really happend .
> >
And you say this not having read their paper, do you? I see.
> >
> > > The real question to be asked , is would he stake his life on it ?
And of course you've asked Rahn and Sturdivan that question? ;~>
Gary
j.raymon...@gmail.com
Ken Rahn wrote: "The only thing that matters is the actual composition of
the four production runs. It's as simple as that."
The essence of Ken's argument is, and always has been, that if you ASSUME
that the fragments from Connally and Kennedy came from M-C bullets, as
opposed to any of the hundreds of other possibilities which are just as
likely and which no one has eliminated, then they did in fact come from
M-C bullets.
To put it another way, if you assume that 399 and the limo fragments were
not planted, then they were not planted.
The fallacy of Rahn's thinking is very obvious, and the fallacy has been
recognized by the courts and even by the FBI.
Of course the Ken Rahn fallacies do not end there. Even if Rahn had been
correct about the JFK/Connally fragments, that information would tell us
absolutely nothing about the identity of the gunman.
lazu...@webtv.net
almost as pathetic as Von Pein & his alter ego Bud were insistent the
Discovery Channel had proved the Magic Bullet Theory, though the
opposite was shown to the world.
lazu...@webtv.net
Parkland Doctors, The Magic Bullet, and parroted by the media.
David VP
Only a true-blue kook would make the patently-absurd statement that the
Laz-man made above.
To think that the Discovery Channel SBT test (or ANY such test) could
re-produce EVERY LAST TINY DETAIL that Bullet CE399 produced when it
tore through two living, breathing humans in Dallas is just a nutty and
impossible notion on its face and everybody knows it!
The kooks demand that LNers duplicate the SBT in some manner, and then,
predictably, when it IS re-created within a reasonable degree of
doability, they still balk and stamp their feet.
And what's WORSE is that some kooks actually have the Kong-sized gonads
to go one step further and say that the Discovery Channel test has
proven just the OPPOSITE (i.e., that the SBT is totally impossible as a
result of that test -- a test which had a WCC/MC bullet pass through
two "bodies", do a similar amount of bodily damage to the "victims"
that was actually done to the real victims in '63, and emerge as an
UNFRAGMENTED bullet after doing all of the above).
How does that test do ANYTHING but buttress the likelihood of the SBT
being (at the very, very LEAST) a distinct "possibility"?
Anthony Marsh
The problem is that Ken can not use NAA to tell the difference between a
WCC lead core or an SMI lead core, or a Norma lead core, etc. Then he
can not tell if a fragment came from the tip of one bullet or the base
of another bullet.
garag...@gmail.com
Precisely so. But I don't think we should be too hasty to accept even
the bona fides of the bullets/frags now in evidence.
In an essay on historymatters.com, "The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical
Than We Knew?" On line at:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
I explored in some detail newly declassified files that suggest the "magic
bullet," Commission Exhibit 399, may not be the bullet that was originally
found on a Parkland Hospital stretcher on 11/22. And it's far from daring
to suggest that, given Hoover's determination to disprove conspiracy, his
agents would be above fiddling with evidence to make sure the boss looked
good. In fact, there are numerous examples of the Bureau doing just that.
But Randich and Grant make the following observations that dovetail nicely
with what you wrote:
Quote:
These more modern analyses and assessment by an eminent nuclear scientist
(V. P. Guinn) gave much added weight to, and reinforcement of, the
single-bullet theory. Recent papers by Rahn and Sturdivan (8,9) have
presented arguments to support this conclusion. However, VPG did not
interpret his measurements with knowledge of the basic metallurgy of lead
alloys, standard lead smelting, and bullet manufacturing practices. His
conclusions are unsupported from those vantage points. He also essentially
disregarded his own previous findings wherein he quantified the antimony,
copper, and arsenic contents of 75 lots of bullets from various
manufacturers (10). In that study he found that less than half of the 75
lots of bullets were uniquely characterized by the concentrations of these
three elements, considered individually or together. Finally, he was
unaware that the small sample size he was constrained to contributed to
variability in his measurements because some of the elements he quantified
were not distributed uniformly within the samples at this scale. It seems
incongruous therefore, that from quantitation of only one element
(antimony) in the JFK assassination, he could make such definitive
statements about the bullet and fragments. In addition, the error analysis
for the uncertainties reported in his data was a minimal effort, and, had
more appropriate statistical analyses of those data been performed, the
conclusion of two specific bullets would have been weakened from that
perspective as well.
Quote.
In: "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives. Erik Randich, Pat Grant, J
Forensic Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4
doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x. Available online at:
www.blackwell-synergy.com
Gary
tomnln
"presumably of entrance" "presumably of exit"
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25776-44C...@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net...
aeffects
getting a little testy cause you PR campaign isn't working there champ?
Amazing those Aussies, doing the test out in the middle of the
Australian Outback. I'm sure they thank God for "gaffers tape"...
lazu...@webtv.net
dead wrong. The program showed1. the bullet was much more damaged and
crumpled than ce 399.2.The bullet did not even get into Connally's
thigh. That means FAILURE.
cdddraftsman
. It could go thru five people and come out undeformed ' asshole '
.............sit on and think about it for awile before using the blow
hole ..................Tom Lowry
cdddraftsman
fact that Cters dismiss it with a sneeze . Beyond the magic bullet
reveils the truth , that these type of bullets can easily go thru five
individuals and come out intact ! End of story , end of gossipy
falsehoods , end of speculation , end of the two gunmen hype , end of
conspiracy ! .....Tom Lowry
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154231397.4...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
name-calling responses only proves that you're name callers, nothing
else.
So the bullet went thru two people in the test. Hoopty do! No
conspiracist has ever denied that bullets can go thru two people. But
the BST calls for much more BS than one theory can handle, the angles
are wrong, the condition of the bullet was different, it didn't complete
its mission, i.e. JBC's thigh, and a host of other problems. So you can
throw the BST out the window.....out the SN window.
aeffects
cdddraftsman wrote:
> Your typical ' head up your ass ' reply . It broke two ribs ' asshole '
> . It could go thru five people and come out undeformed ' asshole '
> .............sit on and think about it for awile before using the blow
> hole ..................Tom Lowry
>
Testy 'testicleless' Tommy is testing his anal tester while testing the
patience of the tester brigade. So Tom, read it this way -- Ken Rahn
doesn't want you for his Lone Neuter photo gallery, sorrry champ!
aeffects
cdddraftsman wrote:
> Quite right DVP , The Single Bullet Fact remains intact , besides the
> fact that Cters dismiss it with a sneeze .
not worth the cost of a "fart', Tommy boy - forget a sneeze....
Phil Ossofee
insult to injury" The single bullet theory is a fact"c'mon nobody can be
this dumb a piece of shit can they really?
cdddraftsman
happen ! Tom Lowry
Bud
Yah, how can they conclude the Titanic was sunk by an iceberg, have
they built a full scale model and run it into an iceberg to prove that
was the cause of the great ship`s demise? And even if they did,
couldn`t I claim failure if the mock Titanic didn`t break in half
exactly like the original, or some other picayune shit?
Bud
Just coincidence that the bullet deflected off the mock Connally
":wrist" and struck him in the "leg" to end it`s flight, just as the
SBT calls for, eh? Out of all the millions of possibilities? Nothing to
think about here, CT, better to call it fraud or failure and move along
to more promising areas of investigation. Now, why did Norman run to
the west side of the TSBD after the shots forty plus years ago?
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Here are the Official Records you must Disprove to support the SBT.
No we don`t, Nutsack.
aeffects
If Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry can't put LHO at the 6th floor
window, nor put a rifle in his hand that day, how the hell can feeble
minded Lone Neuter's do it! The world is littered with WCR *stumps*!
Truck on dear heart!
aeffects
in this case, you're the head *dumber* than a stump! Don't stop quick
Ken Rahn, Lowry's head will be buried so far up....
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"Phil Ossofee" <summersa...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15385-44...@storefull-3237.bay.webtv.net...
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154248926.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
Norman, Jarman & Williams ALL ran to the West side of the building
overlooking the grassy
knoll, just like everyone on the ground because that's where everyone
thought the shots came from.
WHY didn't N, J, W call down to everyone running the wrong way (including
DPD)
that the shots came from Above them?
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1154267923.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
WHY are you so afraid of the Official Records
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
WHY don't you ever address those records??
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1154268093.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bud
Another kook demonstrates the "this is all I gotta know" method of
inquiry.
> Truck on dear heart!
Bud
<snicker> I`ve seen Ben Holmes do a mean ventriloquism trick, where
your voice comes out of his asshole.
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Don't you AIDS people have Nutsacks?
We have them. They just don`t comprise our whole being.
> WHY are you so afraid of the Official Records
> http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
>
> WHY don't you ever address those records??
Why do you sound like a broken record?
cdddraftsman
recovered possibility that shows us what your talking about ? Ken is
talking about CE-399 and NAA results , of which he is a 30 year expert in
, what are you talking about ? What are your qualifications , to even open
your blow hole , in this matter ? Answer these questions and you won't be
so confused about who killed jfk . .........Tom Lowry PS : Amatuer antics
are all we get out of Cters these days , amazing how far they will go to
prop up their silly ass lies .
Website or Blog:
Quote:
cdddraftsman
now an expert in NAA also ? Ken Rahn has 30 years expierence in the field
. Try reading his report in full , before undergirding someones elses
flawed results . All the comments from this supposed ' New Discovery '
were addressed in Ken's report , but were convienently ignored . The NAA
results in Ken Rahn's study remain the definitive answer in the JFK
Assassination ................. NO TWO GUNMEN ......PERIOD ! Tom Lowry
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> j.raymon...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ken Rahn wrote: "The only thing that matters is the actual composition of
> > the lead actually used, and we have shown that it is very consistent over
> > the four production runs. It's as simple as that."
> >
> > The essence of Ken's argument is, and always has been, that if you ASSUME
> > that the fragments from Connally and Kennedy came from M-C bullets, as
> > opposed to any of the hundreds of other possibilities which are just as
> > likely and which no one has eliminated, then they did in fact come from
> > M-C bullets.
> >
> > To put it another way, if you assume that 399 and the limo fragments were
> > not planted, then they were not planted.
> >
> > The fallacy of Rahn's thinking is very obvious, and the fallacy has been
> > recognized by the courts and even by the FBI.
> >
> > Of course the Ken Rahn fallacies do not end there. Even if Rahn had been
> > correct about the JFK/Connally fragments, that information would tell us
> > absolutely nothing about the identity of the gunman.
> >
> >
>
>
> The problem is that Ken can not use NAA to tell the difference between a
> WCC lead core or an SMI lead core, or a Norma lead core, etc. Then he
> can not tell if a fragment came from the tip of one bullet or the base
> of another bullet.
cdddraftsman
"Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives. Erik Randich, Pat Grant, J
Forensic Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4
Is at best a hoax . Their conclusions convienently ignore the report of
a 30 year expert in the field . There criticisms were addressed in the
exhaustive analysis by Rahn and others . The upstart Erik & Pat's '
Flash in the pan results will not stand ' . They are as bogus as gary's
comments are spam . It's back to the drawing boards for conspiracy ,
for the 8,000th time ! ........Tom Lowry
garyN...@gmail.com wrote:
> j.raymon...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ken Rahn wrote: "The only thing that matters is the actual composition of
> > the lead actually used, and we have shown that it is very consistent over
> > the four production runs. It's as simple as that."
> >
> > The essence of Ken's argument is, and always has been, that if you ASSUME
> > that the fragments from Connally and Kennedy came from M-C bullets, as
> > opposed to any of the hundreds of other possibilities which are just as
> > likely and which no one has eliminated, then they did in fact come from
> > M-C bullets.
> >
> > To put it another way, if you assume that 399 and the limo fragments were
> > not planted, then they were not planted.
> >
> > The fallacy of Rahn's thinking is very obvious, and the fallacy has been
> > recognized by the courts and even by the FBI.
> >
> > Of course the Ken Rahn fallacies do not end there. Even if Rahn had been
> > correct about the JFK/Connally fragments, that information would tell us
> > absolutely nothing about the identity of the gunman.
>
> Precisely so. But I don't think we should be too hasty to accept even
> the bona fides of the bullets/frags now in evidence.
>
> In an essay on historymatters.com, "The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical
> Than We Knew?" On line at:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
>
>
> I explored in some detail newly declassified files that suggest the "magic
> bullet," Commission Exhibit 399, may not be the bullet that was originally
> found on a Parkland Hospital stretcher on 11/22. And it's far from daring
> to suggest that, given Hoover's determination to disprove conspiracy, his
> agents would be above fiddling with evidence to make sure the boss looked
> good. In fact, there are numerous examples of the Bureau doing just that.
>
> But Randich and Grant make the following observations that dovetail nicely
> with what you wrote:
>
> Quote:
>
> These more modern analyses and assessment by an eminent nuclear scientist
> (V. P. Guinn) gave much added weight to, and reinforcement of, the
> single-bullet theory. Recent papers by Rahn and Sturdivan (8,9) have
> presented arguments to support this conclusion. However, VPG did not
> interpret his measurements with knowledge of the basic metallurgy of lead
> alloys, standard lead smelting, and bullet manufacturing practices. His
> conclusions are unsupported from those vantage points. He also essentially
> disregarded his own previous findings wherein he quantified the antimony,
> copper, and arsenic contents of 75 lots of bullets from various
> manufacturers (10). In that study he found that less than half of the 75
> lots of bullets were uniquely characterized by the concentrations of these
> three elements, considered individually or together. Finally, he was
> unaware that the small sample size he was constrained to contributed to
> variability in his measurements because some of the elements he quantified
> were not distributed uniformly within the samples at this scale. It seems
> incongruous therefore, that from quantitation of only one element
> (antimony) in the JFK assassination, he could make such definitive
> statements about the bullet and fragments. In addition, the error analysis
> for the uncertainties reported in his data was a minimal effort, and, had
> more appropriate statistical analyses of those data been performed, the
> conclusion of two specific bullets would have been weakened from that
> perspective as well.
>
> Quote.
>
> In: "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
> Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives. Erik Randich, Pat Grant, J
> Forensic Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4
> doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x. Available online at:
> www.blackwell-synergy.com
>
>
> Gary
Stug...@aol.com
background studies on ammo as a whole and concluded that he didn't examine
nearly enough leads that are relevant to the JFK case. The low levels of
antimony and silver observed by Guinn in the MC rounds are, according to
Randich and Grant, QUITE common in many different ammo types. In other
words: Ken can't eliminate a whole host of bullets as having contributed
the tiny fragments in question.
-Stu
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> j.raymon...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ken Rahn wrote: "The only thing that matters is the actual composition of
> > the lead actually used, and we have shown that it is very consistent over
> > the four production runs. It's as simple as that."
> >
> > The essence of Ken's argument is, and always has been, that if you ASSUME
> > that the fragments from Connally and Kennedy came from M-C bullets, as
> > opposed to any of the hundreds of other possibilities which are just as
> > likely and which no one has eliminated, then they did in fact come from
> > M-C bullets.
> >
> > To put it another way, if you assume that 399 and the limo fragments were
> > not planted, then they were not planted.
> >
> > The fallacy of Rahn's thinking is very obvious, and the fallacy has been
> > recognized by the courts and even by the FBI.
> >
> > Of course the Ken Rahn fallacies do not end there. Even if Rahn had been
> > correct about the JFK/Connally fragments, that information would tell us
> > absolutely nothing about the identity of the gunman.
> >
> >
>
>
tomnln
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> Don't you AIDS people have Nutsacks?
> We have them. They just don`t comprise our whole being.
REALLY BUD?????
Which other parts of the male anatomy taste better??
======================================================================
>
>> WHY are you so afraid of the Official Records
>
>> http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
>>
>> WHY don't you ever address those records??
======================================================================
> Why do you sound like a broken record?
Because I Enjoy pointing out your Aversion to Official Records.
Because I Enjoy pointing out what a FOOL you are.
Because I Enjoy your Preference to discussing the male anatomy rather than
Official Records.
Because I Enjoy pointing out that you can't write a single sentance without
the use of Profanity.
NOW, will you address the Official Records of the WCR??
======================================================================
Todd W. Vaughan
....as far up as yours is in Jack White's?
Tell us Dave, do you agree with Jack White's assesments of the Apollo
moon landing photographs or not?
Anthony Marsh
> j.raymon...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Rahn wrote: "The only thing that matters is the actual composition of
>> the lead actually used, and we have shown that it is very consistent over
>> the four production runs. It's as simple as that."
>>
>> The essence of Ken's argument is, and always has been, that if you ASSUME
>> that the fragments from Connally and Kennedy came from M-C bullets, as
>> opposed to any of the hundreds of other possibilities which are just as
>> likely and which no one has eliminated, then they did in fact come from
>> M-C bullets.
>>
>> To put it another way, if you assume that 399 and the limo fragments were
>> not planted, then they were not planted.
>>
>> The fallacy of Rahn's thinking is very obvious, and the fallacy has been
>> recognized by the courts and even by the FBI.
>>
>> Of course the Ken Rahn fallacies do not end there. Even if Rahn had been
>> correct about the JFK/Connally fragments, that information would tell us
>> absolutely nothing about the identity of the gunman.
>
> the bona fides of the bullets/frags now in evidence.
>
> In an essay on historymatters.com, "The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical
> Than We Knew?" On line at:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
>
>
If you are interested in CE 399, perhaps you are not aware of the earliest
photo taken of it, on 11/22/63, when it was only Q1 and not yet CE 399. A
picture of it was stapled onto the FBI evidence sheet made by Robert
Frazier during his examination of the ballistics evidence. It appears to
me to look slightly different than the later official pictures. When I
visited the National Archives I was not able to see the original evidence
sheet or the original picture. We need someone with deep pockets who can
sue the National Archives to obtain a copy of the original picture. Your
help in this matter could advance the case.
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/436461A.gif
tomnln
You said Bowers Never said he saw 3 men climb into a freight car.
I posted Official Proof that you Lied HERE...
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
Would you like to address these Official Records?
http://whokilledjfk.net/
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154303524.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154231047....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> The most poor ass excuse to dismiss the truth I've ever heard . Are you
> now an expert in NAA also ? Ken Rahn has 30 years expierence in the field
> . Try reading his report in full , before undergirding someones elses
> flawed results . All the comments from this supposed ' New Discovery '
> were addressed in Ken's report , but were convienently ignored . The NAA
> results in Ken Rahn's study remain the definitive answer in the JFK
> Assassination ................. NO TWO GUNMEN ......PERIOD ! Tom Lowry
>
You know nothing about this. I have read whatever Ken has written. I have
spoken to him several times. Do you even know him personally? No, of
course not. Ask him where he got his documents that he relies on and then
get back to me about how little I know about NAA. I'll give you a
hypothetic question to show how little you know about NAA. There are two
bullets which we will call bullet A and bullet B. There is a fragment from
the crime scene which we identify as being bullet lead with an antimony
level of 400 ppm. We test bullet A and at the base its antimony level is
400 ppm. We test bullet B and at its tip the antimony level is 400 ppm.
Now, here is the question. Which bullet did the fragment come from, bullet
A or bullet B? Of course you can't answer that. Ken does even dare to try
to answer that. He just smiles his Cheshire Cat smile and disappears.
Tom
cdddraftsman wrote:
> The Following :
>
> "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
> Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives. Erik Randich, Pat Grant, J
> Forensic Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4
>
> Is at best a hoax . Their conclusions convienently ignore the report of
> a 30 year expert in the field . There criticisms were addressed in the
> exhaustive analysis by Rahn and others . The upstart Erik & Pat's '
> Flash in the pan results will not stand ' . They are as bogus as gary's
> comments are spam . It's back to the drawing boards for conspiracy ,
> for the 8,000th time ! ........Tom Lowry
>
Erick and Pat's work is really quite fine work. For starters Erick had to
basically invent a method for cross-sectioning and the "decorating" the
grain structure of the lead matrix. I know for a fact that Erick spent
many hours getting the polish and etch just right. Lead being an extremely
soft metal this was painstaking work. I also know that once Erick
understood just what Rahn was pushing as science he re-doubled his efforts
to get this work published and at least try to add something useful to the
investigation. My suggestion Tom is you take some time and read something
other than Rahn's treatment. And before you blow up at me about how great
Rahn is etc I would submit to you that as far as I know Erick thinks
Oswald did the crime, as I do. For us this is not about supporting either
side of the issue..this is about the truth and scientist of several
disciplines working together to understand the truth of something fairly
complicated. The result of this effort is really simple, the data is
inconclusive and the historical interpretation is based on many false
assumptions about lead, bullet manufacturing and metallurgy. If you want
to hang Oswald go ahead, but you'll never do it using NAA as the rope.
Tom P.
Ben Holmes
You mistake Tommy Lowry as a person who cares. He doesn't. He's read nothing
other than the WCR, and certainly isn't likely to delve into the intricacies of
NAA to learn anything at all. Tommy is a troll and a clown...
Todd W. Vaughan
tomnln wrote:
> Hi toad;
> You said Bowers Never said he saw 3 men climb into a freight car.
Do you have a document where Bowers says otherwise?
tomnln
Unless you wanna call the Bowere/FBI/DPD Liars also.
That's what you do with Everyone who makes you look like a FOOL.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154366571....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
garag...@gmail.com
cdddraftsman wrote:
> The Following :
>
> "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
> Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives. Erik Randich, Pat Grant, J
> Forensic Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4
>
> Is at best a hoax . Their conclusions convienently ignore the report of
> a 30 year expert in the field . There criticisms were addressed in the
> exhaustive analysis by Rahn and others . The upstart Erik & Pat's '
> Flash in the pan results will not stand ' . They are as bogus as gary's
> comments are spam . It's back to the drawing boards for conspiracy ,
> for the 8,000th time ! ........Tom Lowry
>
Apparently you missed the perfect opening I gave you to explain how you
know what you claim you know. I'll repeat my observations and please do
it this time so we can learn from you, O.K.?
Gary
I arrived at this "far fetched conclusion" by reading the to-and-fro
between Rahn/Sturdivan and Snyder. Snyder demolished them, which you'd
know if you'd followed the whole discussion rather than listen only to Ken
Rahn.
> > > I've seen many , many article's on metallurgy , that fully support the
> > > G/R/S conclusions , thousands of long winded , winding passages that
> > > all eventually come to the same conclusions .
I see. But none you'd care to quote; none you'd care to cite; and none
you'd care to discuss in detail, right?
>>>I'm already getting a feeling
> > > and that is something Prof. Rahn warns against , since I have no background
> > > in NAA , so I have nothing else to go on , that this outcome , is maybe being
> > > influenced by some other , outside force , besides science . What those
> > > are , have yet to be determined .
Say, about that "feeling and that is something that Prof. Rahn warns
against," might it be, dare I say it, A CONSPIRACY afoot being run by
government scientists Randich and Grant intent on blowing away one of the
key struts out from under the government's case? Oooh, sounds scary!
> > The concluding paragraph of their published article reads as follows:
[snip quote from Randich and Grant paper
> > > How many jacketed ammunitions ? There are literally thousnds of choices .
> > > Another amazing co-incident ? that after reflection ? turns out to be wrong ?
> > > based on faulty logic ? How many times before , have we seen this happen in
> > > this case ?
Say what? You've read the paper, of course? Not.
> > In other words, MC lead is in no way unique such that fragments can
> > be reliably matched to one another. The myth that such a match can be
> > made was started by Vincent Guinn and propagated by Rahn and Sturdivan,
> > none of whom are familiar with elemental metallurgy, which is the sine
> > qua non here.
> > > Myth ? Another stretch ? I see your point of view though , I think myth
> > > is too strong a word here , to be used , so early in this controversy .
> > > Wouldn't you agree ?
No, I wouldn't. Myth is what it was when Guinn first proposed it nearly 30
years ago and it still is a myth.
But you apparently take exception to hyperbole, do you? How about this for
hyperbole: "It [Rahn/Strudivan's take on NAA] knits together the core
physical evidence into an airtight case against Lee OSWALD. It is, thus,
the key to resolving the major controversies in the JFK assassination and
putting the matter to rest." [Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 215--222] Let me guess: you don't think
this exaggerated at all, eh?
>> I think G/R/S have a pretty good grip on elemental
> > > metalluragy , which is a prerequisite , before doing any further analysis .
And precisely what was it that convinced you of their expertise in
metallurgy, the prerequisite? Certainly nothing they've written on the
subject, nothing in their background would suggest it and they've never
crowed about their credentials. So how did you arrive at your opinion.
> > > I don't have to remind you , that the past has many instances were men
> > > that didn't even have a degree in a particular field , outshown so called
> > > leading authority's on a particular subject thru the use of multi-various
> > > analytical techniques and common sense which proved superior .
I'm sure you know what you're saying, even if no one else does. But if
you're saying that one needn't be degreed in a particular field to know
something valuable about it, of course you're right. In fact, I proved
that myself, in an essay at historymatters.com, entitled: HOW FIVE
INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK'S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG
[http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5I...]
> > Erik Randich, by contrast, is a metallurgist of high repute and Pat
> > Grant was once one of Vincent P. Guinn's graduate students and bears
> > his old (and now deceased) professor no malice. Another difference
> > between between Randich and Grant and Rahn and Sturdivan is that
> > neither of the former has an opinion on the conspiracy question; both
> > of the latter decidedly do.
> > > You confuse the issue quite nicely . Good show . What you actually
> > > meant to say was " he bears his old professor no malice that he's willing
> > > to admit to , or that he has voiced publicly , isn't it ?
Oh, you've seen into Pat Grant's soul, have you? During the conference he
told us he quite liked Guinn, but believed he was wrong on NAA. Is one not
allowed to have an honest difference of opinion with a former teacher and
have it be anything but malice?
I was also surprised you
> > > used the term ' high repute ' so loosley .
Oh, so you have researched Randich like I have and have come to a
different conclusion? Please share it with us!
In a case were we've seen highly
> > > reputed authors , on any number of subjects , go by the wayside , so often , I
> > > wonder if this isn't , just another case of ' The cold fusion blues ' ? Further
> > > more , you make it sound as if G/R/S had come to a conclusion , before they
> > > they did their testing and tailored their conclusions to fit the facts , rather in
> > > opposite to what really happend .
And you say this not having read their paper, do you? I see.
> > > The real question to be asked , is would he stake his life on it ?
And of course you've asked Rahn and Sturdivan that question? ;~>
Gary
Anthony Marsh
> The most poor ass excuse to dismiss the truth I've ever heard . Are you
> now an expert in NAA also ? Ken Rahn has 30 years expierence in the field
Ken Rahn has never done any NAA on bullet lead. He is a climatologist.
Not a metallurgist.
cdddraftsman
conspiracy literature , then dismissing it out right , is plenty and
all the attention that needs to be paid . Especialy to the new world
chirps like Ben't Holmes , Aeffects , Tomln , bird brains from the bird
seed factory , who sing all day , fanciful tunes of conspiracy
....chirp ....chirp .....birddroppings.........birddroppings..
HAAAAAAAAAA....Ther're all birdbrains ! .............Tom Lowry
cdddraftsman
conspiracy literature , then dismissing it out right , is plenty and
all the attention that needs to be paid . Especialy to the new world
chirps like Ben't Holmes , Aeffects , Tomln , bird brains from the bird
seed factory , who sing all day , fanciful tunes of conspiracy
....chirp ....chirp .....birddroppings.........birddroppings..
HAAAAAAAAAA....Ther're all birdbrains ! .............Tom Lowry
cdddraftsman
conspiracy literature , then dismissing it out right , is plenty and
all the attention that needs to be paid . Especialy to the new world
chirps like Ben't Holmes , Aeffects , Tomln , bird brains from the bird
seed factory , who sing all day , fanciful tunes of conspiracy
....chirp ....chirp .....birddroppings.........birddroppings..
HAAAAAAAAAA....Ther're all birdbrains ! .............Tom Lowry
tomnln
> If past preformances , s any indication , its true , skimming
> conspiracy literature , then dismissing it out right , is plenty and
> all the attention that needs to be paid . Especialy to the new world
> chirps like Ben't Holmes , Aeffects , Tomln , bird brains from the bird
> seed factory , who sing all day , fanciful tunes of conspiracy
> ....chirp ....chirp .....birddroppings.........birddroppings..
> HAAAAAAAAAA....Ther're all birdbrains ! .............Tom Lowry
Hey Lower-ee & Lopwer;
The following is NOT from "conspiravcy literature".
It's from Official Records.
pjsp...@aol.com
No matter how many degrees one has....No matter how many years one has
studied metallurgy, Guinn's conclusions were logically inconsistent and
inaccurate. The logical conclusion was that the wrist fragments and CE
399 were not related.
From my online presentation:
http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html
"But what of the Neutron Activation Analysis, which nuclear physicist
Vincent Guinn testified demonstrated that the bullet fragment removed
from Connally's wrist most probably came from the magic bullet found
on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital? Doesn't this prove that the
bullet hitting Connally in his wrist was the same bullet that fell out
of his leg, and support the single-bullet theory?
Well, without even going into the substantial circumstantial evidence
indicating that the bullet supposedly found on Connally's stretcher
after falling from his leg was, in fact, found on someone else's
stretcher (as per the hospital employees who discovered it), was never
seen until at least an hour after Connally had been rushed into the
hospital (as per the half-dozen or so nurses and orderlies who removed
Connally's clothes and wheeled away his stretcher), and never lodged
in his leg (as per Connally's doctor), there is reason to doubt
Guinn's results proved what so many believe. (An alternative
explanation for the bullet's presence on the stretcher appears in the
next section.)
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 bulet 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. 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 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, in 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.
While I still can't answer that, I have uncovered a possible innocent
explanation for Guinn's mistake, 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 believe 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!"
lazu...@webtv.net
perspective now in the case against Oswald as it stands for the JFK
Killing.
1. The prints on the rifle we know don't mean anything since it was
LHO's rifle(if they in fact actually existed) and they weren't fresh &
FBI Examiner Latona found nothing.
2. The MC could not have been taken into the TSBD by Oswald 11-22-63,
since the 2 eyewitnessess Linnie Mae Randle & Buell Wesey Frazier said
the package LHO carried under his arm "was 24 inches give or take an
inch or two", in any event much too short for the 35 inch broken down
MC. In the 1967 SEEBS Special Rather carried the MC and it came up to
his chin! Didn't faze him though.
3.The FBI, nor Dallas Police did not check to see if the rifle had been
recently fired correct? Only later on was it used for reenactments.
4. How about Oswald's prints in the sniper's nest that does sound pretty
damning? I know he worked on the sixth floor that morning, but these
were specifically where a sniper would hide with the rifle.
Todd W. Vaughan
tomnln wrote:
> Right Here toad; http://whokilledjfk.net/
>
>
> Unless you wanna call the Bowere/FBI/DPD Liars also.
>
> That's what you do with Everyone who makes you look like a FOOL.
>
>
Fool,
Let's set the record straight. What I REPEATEDLY called you out on was
your TOTAL CLAIM that Bowers saw 2 men run from the fence and jump onto
a train.
I examined the record in the case and found no indication whatsoever of
Bowers himself ever saying...
A.) that he ever saw 2 men run from the fence...
or
B.) that he ever saw anyone jump onto a train.
That record remains intact. Even now.
Now, you've recently posted an FBI document on your silly amateurish
website where, a whopping 29 years after the fact, a 2nd party, DPD
Officer Wise, told the FBI that "someone" in the tower said they saw 3
men jump onto the train. OK, Tom, MAYBE Wise isn't embellishing his
story and MAYBE that "someone" WAS in fact Bowers, and MAYBE he really
saw 3 men jump onto the train (he stopped it after all). However, there
is still NO RECORD of Bowers himself ever saying that is why he stopped
the train. Further, EVEN WHEN HE WAS SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING WHY HE
STOPPED THE TRAIN WITH MARK LANE, ONLY 3 OR 4 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT,
BOWERS SAID NOTHING OF THE SORT!
Does that mean anything to you? Or are you, as I suspect, for good
reason, completely brain dead?
Now, moving on, the other part of your claim was that "Bowers saw 2
men" (later you added a 3rd man) run from the fence. But the document
you posted on your website says nothing of the sort! And there is
nothing in the record that supports your claim.
You lied, didn't you?
You also claimed that the document you posted was a DPD report, when in
fact it is an FBI report, and you also claimed that the fence was
"several hundred yards" away from the stockade fence. It is not. It's
150 to 250 feet or so away. From this I conclude, rightly so I might
add, that you really have no clue as to what is going on, and very
little credibility.
As for your query as to "where they (the tramps) came from", in the
real world in which I live (which you are obviously not a part of) the
train tracks do not begin and end only where they are nearest the
stockade fence. Therefore the tramps could have jumped on the train at
any point along the length of the tracks. That you can't figure that
out, and that you refuse to offer it as an explanation, speaks volumes
about your lack of both intelligence and honesty.
Todd
Anthony Marsh
You seem to know a little about NAA and bullet lead, so let me ask you a
hypothetical question which no one seems to be able to answer. I have two
bullets, which I will call Bullet A and Bullet B. And I have a fragment
from the crime scene. The antimony level in the fragment is 400 ppm. The
antimony level from the base of Bullet A is 400 ppm. The antimony level
from the tip of Bullet B is 400 ppm. Now, can you please tell me which
bullet the fragment came from, Bullet A or Bullet B? Ken could not answer
this. Sturdivan could not answer this. No WC defender is smart enough to
answer this.
tomnln
Here is the Proof that you Lied.
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
1-29-06
>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
>
> Here's what Bowers said about the two men:
>
1-23-06
>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
>
1-26-06
>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
>
1-26-06
>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
>
1-27-06
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138344226....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ř Tomnln,
>
> Still too much of a coward to remove the lies from your own web page.
>
> You'd rather spread lies about what Lee Bowers saw.
>
> You're a piece of garbage.
>
> Todd
1-27-06
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138342959....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ř Tomnln,
>
>>Messing with Evidence in ANY form is a FELONY.<
>
========================================================================="Todd
W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138396174.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ř Tom,
>
>>Fritz is also the man who said "I took no notes".<
>
> And you're the one who said Lee Bowers saw the two men by the fence run
> away and jump onto a railroad car.
>
> Liar.
>
> Todd
>
Ř
===============================================================================
1-27-06
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138405572....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Tomnln,
>
>>It's you and your Ilk who have "Pirated" the American Justice System. <
>
> It's you who's blatantly lied on your web site.
>
> Lee Bowers NEVER claimed that the two men he saw near the fence ran
> away, nor did he say that either one of them jumped on a railroad car.
>
> You made this up, didn't you?
>
> Todd
>
2-1-06
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138833176.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tom,
>
> Let me ask you a question.
>
> Where in the record in this case does Lee Bowers claim that he saw the
> two men near the fence run away and get onto a railway car?
>
> Either you have a source or you are a liar.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Todd
>
2-20-06
> Here's a little known fact for you to think about once you sober up:
> not only is Lee Bowers not on record as ever saying that he saw anyone
> running from behind the fence and jumping onto a box car, he's on
> record as saying that he saw no strangers behind the fence at the time
> of the shooting.
>
> Now, put down the crack pipe and see if you can come up with an
> intelligent reply for a change.
>
> Todd
>=======================================================================
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154460886....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
cdddraftsman wrote:
> The Following :
>
> "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
> Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives. Erik Randich, Pat Grant, J
> Forensic Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4
>
> Is at best a hoax .
A lone nutter thinking there was a conspiracy, amazing! Rahn's ego will
survive, will yours?
garag...@gmail.com
Well, obviously, Tony, you'd have to be way smarter than anyone round
here is to answer such a question. That goes for me, too. Sorry I can't
help ya, but great question!
Gary
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
Here is the Proof that you Lied.
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
1-29-06
>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
>
> Here's what Bowers said about the two men:
>
1-23-06
>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
>
1-26-06
>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
1-26-06
>
> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
> car".
>
1-27-06
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1138344226....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ø Tomnln,
>>
>> Still too much of a coward to remove the lies from your own web page.
>>
>> You'd rather spread lies about what Lee Bowers saw.
>>
>> You're a piece of garbage.
>>
>> Todd
>
>
>
> 1-27-06
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1138342959....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ø Tomnln,
>>
>>>Messing with Evidence in ANY form is a FELONY.<
>>
>
> ========================================================================="Todd
> W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1138396174.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ø Tom,
>>
>>>Fritz is also the man who said "I took no notes".<
>>
>> And you're the one who said Lee Bowers saw the two men by the fence run
>> away and jump onto a railroad car.
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>
> Ø
cdddraftsman
not ? Tom lowry
aeffects
cdddraftsman wrote:
> Coming from the King of Clowns , I don't know wether to be honoured or
> not ? Tom lowry
nobody to talk to? Those pesky Lone Nutter's abandon you again?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>cdddraftsman wrote:
>> Coming from the King of Clowns , I don't know wether to be honoured or
>> not ? Tom lowry
>
>nobody to talk to? Those pesky Lone Nutter's abandon you again?
So many of the LNT'ers feed on attention they gain with personal insults. They
rarely discuss the evidence, and when they do, they usually get into trouble
because they know little beyond the WCR.
Note the near silence on my series of provable lies of the WCR. They can't
refute them, or deny them.
(I still have many more to come...)
aeffects
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1154531465....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
> >
> >
> >cdddraftsman wrote:
> >> Coming from the King of Clowns , I don't know wether to be honoured or
> >> not ? Tom lowry
> >
> >nobody to talk to? Those pesky Lone Nutter's abandon you again?
>
>
> So many of the LNT'ers feed on attention they gain with personal insults. They
> rarely discuss the evidence, and when they do, they usually get into trouble
> because they know little beyond the WCR.
>
> Note the near silence on my series of provable lies of the WCR.
they resonate amongst the lurkers...
They can't
> refute them, or deny them.
>
> (I still have many more to come...)
keep 'em coming, Ben
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
Read toad's posts here then see Exhibit at bottom of Web Page.
Bon Voyage toad. (on yer slippery road to hell)
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oSWzg.1557$W01.154@dukeread08...
>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
>
> Here is the Proof that you Lied.
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
>
> 1-29-06
>
>>
>> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
>> car".
>>
>> Here's what Bowers said about the two men:
>>
>
>
>
> 1-23-06
>
>>
>> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
>> car".
>>
>
> 1-26-06
>
>>
>> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
>> car".
>
> 1-26-06
>
>>
>> Tom, Bower never, ever, said the 2 men ran & jumped into a railway
>> car".
>>
>
> 1-27-06
>
>
>
>> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138344226....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Ř Tomnln,
>>>
>>> Still too much of a coward to remove the lies from your own web page.
>>>
>>> You'd rather spread lies about what Lee Bowers saw.
>>>
>>> You're a piece of garbage.
>>>
>>> Todd
>>
>>
>>
>> 1-27-06
>>
>> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138342959....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Ř Tomnln,
>>>
>>>>Messing with Evidence in ANY form is a FELONY.<
>>>
>>
>> =========================================================================
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138396174.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Tom,
>>>
>>>>Fritz is also the man who said "I took no notes".<
>>>
>>> And you're the one who said Lee Bowers saw the two men by the fence run
>>> away and jump onto a railroad car.
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>>
>>> Todd
>>>
>> 1-27-06
Stug...@aol.com
I'd love for you to show me the part of Rahn's paper that addresses the
criticism Randich and Tobin have on the problems posed in assessing lead
without many large samples from the same bullet if not the whole bullet
itself (this would be fatal to Rahn's work because unless one assumes the
very thing that they are trying to prove-- which is something Rahn has
grown fond of-- it means that ANY analysis of the wrist fragment is
doomed). Please don't throw me the blatant speculation by
non-metallurgist Larry Sturdivan. Deal with the ACTUAL grain analysis of
ACTUAL MC bullets done by a trained metallurgist. Come back to me when you
have something of substance on this issue.
-Stu
cdddraftsman wrote:
> The Following :
>
> "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
> Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives. Erik Randich, Pat Grant, J
> Forensic Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4
>
> Is at best a hoax . Their conclusions convienently ignore the report of
> a 30 year expert in the field . There criticisms were addressed in the
> exhaustive analysis by Rahn and others . The upstart Erik & Pat's '
> Flash in the pan results will not stand ' . They are as bogus as gary's
> comments are spam . It's back to the drawing boards for conspiracy ,
> for the 8,000th time ! ........Tom Lowry
>
> > In: "Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
> > Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives. Erik Randich, Pat Grant, J
> > Forensic Sci, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4
aeffects
Stugra...@aol.com wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I'd love for you to show me the part of Rahn's paper that addresses the
> criticism Randich and Tobin have on the problems posed in assessing lead
> without many large samples from the same bullet if not the whole bullet
> itself (this would be fatal to Rahn's work because unless one assumes the
> very thing that they are trying to prove-- which is something Rahn has
> grown fond of-- it means that ANY analysis of the wrist fragment is
> doomed). Please don't throw me the blatant speculation by
> non-metallurgist Larry Sturdivan. Deal with the ACTUAL grain analysis of
> ACTUAL MC bullets done by a trained metallurgist. Come back to me when you
> have something of substance on this issue.
>
> -Stu
Don't hold your breath Stu. His sun rises and sets on KRahn, most on
this side have him in the *tardpit*. He won't debate! He doesn't know
the evidence....
Tom
Stugra...@aol.com wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I'd love for you to show me the part of Rahn's paper that addresses the
> criticism Randich and Tobin have on the problems posed in assessing lead
> without many large samples from the same bullet if not the whole bullet
> itself (this would be fatal to Rahn's work because unless one assumes the
> very thing that they are trying to prove-- which is something Rahn has
> grown fond of-- it means that ANY analysis of the wrist fragment is
> doomed). Please don't throw me the blatant speculation by
> non-metallurgist Larry Sturdivan. Deal with the ACTUAL grain analysis of
> ACTUAL MC bullets done by a trained metallurgist. Come back to me when you
> have something of substance on this issue.
>
> -Stu
>
>
Stu,
No problem...I know Ken use to think any size sample was OK to analyze.
Gimme a couple of days to comb thru both his paper and his many
illustrative post on this matter.
PS: Please send rain..we are dying down here!
Tom
Ray
GARY AGUILAR WROTE:
"On July 15th, 2006 I hosted a small gathering in San Francisco to hear
Ken Rahn and two Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists discuss neutron
activation analysis and the Kennedy case."
My compliments to Dr. Aguilar for his herculean work on this issue, and
especially for persuading qualified experts to examine the NAA in the JFK
case. Up Cork!
PJSPEARE WROTE:
"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......
I have uncovered a possible innocent explanation for Guinn's mistake, one
that moves him from the category of deliberate liar to mere screw-up"
Here I would agree that, in fairness to Guinn, he really believed what he
was saying. As the great lawyer/scientist Francis Bacon observed long ago:
APHORISM XLVI
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as
being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all
things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater
number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it
either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and
rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the
authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/b/bacon/francis/organon/chapter1.html
FROM SHOWTIME'S TRIAL OF LEE OSWALD:
G[erry]S[pence]: Here's a picture of the skull, X-ray of the skull, of
the President. And what we see are an artist's drawing of the fragments
that were seen
in the X-ray. I understand that you examined only two of the 30 fragments
that were found in the skull; is that correct?
V[incent]G[uinn]: There were only two that were delivered to me, I'm
not sure...
GS: Please, is that correct?
VG: That is correct.
GS You did two.
VG Yeah.
GS Only two. And do you know which two?
VG No.
GS And so do you know what the composition is of the other 28
fragments found in his brain?
VG: Yes.
GS: Have you checked them?
VG: No, but I know what they are.
In other words, Guinn's opinions about the the source of the bullet
lead had nothing whatsoever to do with science.
The proper analysis of Guinn's theory does not require degrees in
chemistry or even metallurgy, although a knowledge of probabilities (which
Guinn did not have) would be a big help. Here is one of the Federal Court
rulings that sank Guinn's theory, and it relies on no more than logic and
common sense:
QUOTE ON:
United States v. Mikos
No. 02 cr 137 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2003)
Court granted in part defense motion to exclude government expert
testimony regarding comparative bullet lead analysis. Such analysis
involves the comparison of two bullets to determine if they are chemically
indistinguishable and then to opine whether they came from the same batch
of lead.
The trial court determines that such expert testimony can be separated
into distinct areas. The first is an actual analysis of lead bullet
comparisons which is a question of chemistry. This was not challenged by
the defense.
The second area, however, "is essentially a statistical conclusion" which
the government concedes does not lend itself to a scientifically valid
estimate. The court rejects the government's argument that 30 years of
real-world experience and the admissibility of this evidence in other
courts overcomes the inability to accurately measure the probability that
two bullets with similar chemical characteristics came from the same
batch.
The court further finds that there is no evidence that the samples which
make up the government's database were gathered in a scientifically valid
manner so as to represent the bullet population as a whole. Therefore, the
court holds that the expert cannot testify that the bullets used to kill
the victim and the bullets found in the defendant's car came from the same
batch of lead. QUOTE OFF
PJSPEARE wrote:
"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."
In 1966, at a conference sponsored by the Third Decade in Fredonia, NY, I
predicted that Guinn's "methodology" would be rejected by the courts. Ten
years later, that prediction has been completely fullfilled, and the FBI
has been forced to abandon CBLA as a prosecution tool. However, the courts
have not eliminated the possibility that CBLA can be used to prove that
two bullet fragments DO NOT have a common origin.
I now predict that Pat Speare will be proven correct in his statement that
"it's highly probable the magic bullet and the wrist fragment ARE NOT
related."
In other words, it will be scientifically proven that CE399 was probably
planted, whether at Parkland or in a subsequent switch, as proposed by
Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar.
If and when that happens, we will have to thank the memory of Vincent
Guinn.
j.raymon...@gmail.com
Anthony Marsh
Possible, but on the other hand they may be related because the FBI dug
the wrist fragment(s) out of CE 399 in the lab.
> In 1966, at a conference sponsored by the Third Decade in Fredonia, NY, I
> predicted that Guinn's "methodology" would be rejected by the courts. Ten
> years later, that prediction has been completely fullfilled, and the FBI
> has been forced to abandon CBLA as a prosecution tool. However, the courts
> have not eliminated the possibility that CBLA can be used to prove that
> two bullet fragments DO NOT have a common origin.
>
> I now predict that Pat Speare will be proven correct in his statement that
> "it's highly probable the magic bullet and the wrist fragment ARE NOT
> related."
>
> In other words, it will be scientifically proven that CE399 was probably
> planted, whether at Parkland or in a subsequent switch, as proposed by
> Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar.
>
You'll have to explain that subsequent switch. Do you have a copy
negative of the very first picture taken of Q1 on 11/22/63?
Ray
"Possible, but on the other hand they may be related because the FBI dug
the wrist fragment(s) out of CE 399 in the lab."
Since the Connally fragment does not "match" CE399, this is highly
unlikely. This theory is Guinn's own brainchild, but he never produced a
shred of evidence to support it.
Besides, the FBI had no motive to do so, since the FBI did not support the
magic bullet theory and, as far as I know, they still don't.
I doubt they ever will.
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> "Possible, but on the other hand they may be related because the FBI dug
> the wrist fragment(s) out of CE 399 in the lab."
>
> Since the Connally fragment does not "match" CE399, this is highly
> unlikely. This theory is Guinn's own brainchild, but he never produced a
> shred of evidence to support it.
>
Well, that is not exactly what Guinn said, but he was not the first
person to suggest such a thing. He was never so specific as to claim
that the wrist fragment(s) came by the FBI carving them out of CE 399.
> Besides, the FBI had no motive to do so, since the FBI did not support the
> magic bullet theory and, as far as I know, they still don't.
>
It is not necessary for a SBT. It is necessary to link Oswald to the
shooting. The FBI was firm on that.
Ray
> In other words, it will be scientifically proven that CE399 was probably
> planted, whether at Parkland or in a subsequent switch, as proposed by
> Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar.
Anthony Marsh wrote:
"You'll have to explain that subsequent switch."
The theory of a subsequent switch is outlined in this article by Josiah
Thompson and Gary Aguilar:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
Anthony marsh wrote:
"Do you have a copy negative of the very first picture taken of Q1 on
11/22/63?"
No. In fact I do not myself subscribe to the bullet switch theory,
although I have the greatest respect for Messrs Aguilar & Thompson. To
me, their theory relies too heavily on eyewitness
identification/memory.
It seems to me that, if humans cannot be relied on to accurately
remember unique individual people they have seen, then how can we
expect them to accurately remember/identify, after the passage of time,
a small generic object like a bullet?
cdddraftsman
case , absolutely and utterly useless . .................Tom Lowry
j.raymon...@gmail.com
cdddraftsman wrote:
> Which brings up the point of using eye and ear witnesess in the JFK
> case , absolutely and utterly useless . .................Tom Lowry
The only eyewitness identification issue in the JFK case is provided by
the Warren Commission testimony of Howard Brennan. I think most
researchers would agree with you that Brennan's effort at
identification is "absolutely and utterly useless."
The same analysis should also apply to the eyewitness identifications
in the murder of J.D. Tippit.
garag...@gmail.com
j.raymon...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Rahn wrote: "The only thing that matters is the actual composition of
> the lead actually used, and we have shown that it is very consistent over
> the four production runs. It's as simple as that."
>
> The essence of Ken's argument is, and always has been, that if you ASSUME
> that the fragments from Connally and Kennedy came from M-C bullets, as
> opposed to any of the hundreds of other possibilities which are just as
> likely and which no one has eliminated, then they did in fact come from
> M-C bullets.
>
> To put it another way, if you assume that 399 and the limo fragments were
> not planted, then they were not planted.
>
> The fallacy of Rahn's thinking is very obvious, and the fallacy has been
> recognized by the courts and even by the FBI.
>
> Of course the Ken Rahn fallacies do not end there. Even if Rahn had been
> correct about the JFK/Connally fragments, that information would tell us
> absolutely nothing about the identity of the gunman.
Touche!
Gary
Anthony Marsh
> Ray Wrote:
>> In other words, it will be scientifically proven that CE399 was probably
>> planted, whether at Parkland or in a subsequent switch, as proposed by
>> Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar.
>
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> "You'll have to explain that subsequent switch."
>
> The theory of a subsequent switch is outlined in this article by Josiah
> Thompson and Gary Aguilar:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
>
So, are you only considering a switch was made before the bullet got to
Frazier? Some pointed bullet was taken on the plane and switched with a
genuine WCC M-C bullet? Frazier's notes show a genuine WCC M-C bullet. The
switch would have to be made on the plane. Maybe he had the pointed bullet
in his left pocket and the WCC bullet in his right pocket and got confused
when he got off the plane?
> Anthony marsh wrote:
>
> "Do you have a copy negative of the very first picture taken of Q1 on
> 11/22/63?"
>
> No. In fact I do not myself subscribe to the bullet switch theory,
> although I have the greatest respect for Messrs Aguilar & Thompson. To
> me, their theory relies too heavily on eyewitness
> identification/memory.
>
> It seems to me that, if humans cannot be relied on to accurately
> remember unique individual people they have seen, then how can we
> expect them to accurately remember/identify, after the passage of time,
> a small generic object like a bullet?
>
>
I was not asking that. I was asking if you have the earliest photo of CE
399, after this switch supposedly took place? on 11/22/63. I don't know
for sure, but I suspect that I agree with your assessment 100%.
David VP
to be made on the plane. Maybe he had the pointed bullet in his left
pocket and the WCC bullet in his right pocket and got confused when he got
off the plane?" <<<
Yeah, the "what ifs?" never stop flowing from the CT abyss....they are six
miles deep, at least.
"What if" the cops planted those shells in Oak Cliff and in the TSBD?
"What if" Oswald was in the lunchroom at exactly 12:30?
"What if" CE399 was "switched" by some dumbbell plotter who couldn't tell
one bullet from another?
"What if" Oswald was really the patsy he said he was, and STILL
(incredibly) managed to have NO VERIFIABLE ALIBI for 12:30 PM CST on
11/22/63? (Lucky-ass plotters there indeed.)
"What if" gobs of ordinary citizens in Dallas and regular cops and
detectives on the DPD police force gathered together in the hours after
the JFK & Tippit murders and decided to all lie and say everything pointed
to this guy named "Oswald"?
Yeah, that's logical.
The above "Maybe he got confused" nonsense/conjecture reminded me of this
"Pure CT Gold" remark made by David Lifton several years ago. .....
"About two years after 'Best Evidence' was published, I in fact realized
there was a much more significant moment in time for getting the body out
of the coffin, and that was the brief period when the coffin was already
aboard the plane, and the entire Kennedy party was down on the tarmac. And
today, that is when I think that event actually occurred. How they got the
body off the plane is another matter." -- David S. Lifton; November 15,
1997
~~~~~~~
So, if one theory fails to convince anybody....just move on to the next
one and see if that one can be wedged into some silly pro-CT scenario
without a shred of proof to back that one up either.
And don't ya just love this piece of ironclad certainty from the man (Mr.
Lifton) who spent fifteen years writing a massive pro-CT tome on the JFK
case? It's a nice ambiguous passage on which, in reality, his ENTIRE "Body
Alteration" theory rests....because if the plotters can't find a way to
get that body off of that airplane somehow -- they obviously cannot "fix"
those head wounds on JFK prior to the Bethesda autopsy. ......
"How they got the body off the plane is another matter." -- D. Lifton;
1997
LOL.
Lifton hasn't the slightest idea how any of this covert stuff was pulled
off -- but he KNOWS it WAS pulled off (somehow, some way, by someone).
Was Barbara Eden in Dallas on 11/22/63? Because she could have "blinked"
the casket off the plane I suppose. Something to ponder anyway.
Ray
> I was not asking that. I was asking if you have the earliest photo of CE
> 399, after this switch supposedly took place? on 11/22/63. I don't know
> for sure, but I suspect that I agree with your assessment 100%.
No. I do not have either a negative or a print of that photo. I do not
believe it can be proven that such a switch took place, and I say that
with the greatest respect to the learned gentlemen who have proposed the
theory.