Neutron Activation - busted!
Robert Harris
The evidence continues to pile up, which proves that Dr. Guinn's
analysis was badly flawed. This article in Science Daily, reports that
some of the world's top experts, including a former forensic expert for
the FBI have thoroughly discredited Guinn's procedures.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517142528.htm
Science News
Bullet Evidence Challenges Findings In JFK Assassination
ScienceDaily (May 17, 2007) ã Researchers at Texas A&M University are
combining statistics and chemistry to shoot holes in traditional
bullet-lead analysis techniques and the accuracy of so-called "expert"
testimony -- specifically, calling into question critical evidence that
has long supported the theory of a lone gunman in the 1963 assassination
of United States President John F. Kennedy.
In challenging the evidence for the lone-gunman theory, Cliff
Spiegelman, professor of statistics at Texas A&M and an expert in
bullet-lead analysis, recently teamed with former Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) agent and forensic scientist William A. Tobin of
Forensic Engineering International in Virginia and William D. James, a
research chemist with the Texas A&M Center for Chemical Characterization
and Analysis (CCCA). Together, they conducted a chemical and forensic
analysis of bullets reportedly derived from the same batch as those used
by suspected assassin Lee Harvey Oswald to gun down Kennedy on that
fateful day at Dealey Plaza.
Their findings, which show that evidence used to rule out a second
assassin is fundamentally flawed, will be published in a forthcoming
edition of "Annals of Applied Statistics."
Using new compositional analysis techniques not available in the 1960s,
the team found that the bullet fragments involved in the assassination
are not nearly as rare as previously reported. In addition, their
findings show that one of the 10 test bullets from one box analyzed is
considered a match to one or more of the five existing assassination
fragments, meaning that the matching fragments could have come from
three or more separate bullets and, therefore, more than one shooter.
As one of the most traumatic events in U.S. history, the Kennedy
assassination sparked a wave of scientific investigation, both
immediately after the murder and in the decades since. One such
investigation, the 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations,
re-examined the murders of Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther
King Jr.
With respect to the Kennedy assassination, the committee concluded,
largely on the basis of comparative bullet lead analysis and expert
testimony by University of California-Irvine chemist Dr. Vincent P.
Guinn, that if there were another shooter or shooters -- likely firing
from the Grassy Knoll -- they missed all limousine occupants.
Ancient history -- that is, until Spiegelman got a telephone call in
2004 from Stuart Wexler, a humanities and advanced placement government
instructor at Highstown High School in New Jersey, who eventually served
as the historian for the team's paper. Wexler had read online about
Spiegelman's recent work on a National Research Council committee that
helped the FBI assess its Compositional Analysis of Bullet Lead (CABL)
procedure used as forensic evidence in hundreds of murder cases,
including the Kennedy assassination.
"Wexler and a friend of his had bought some bullets of the same type
believed to have been used in the Kennedy assassination," Spiegelman
recalls. "They were Mannlicher-Carcanos, which were only manufactured in
1954 and are now antiques, mainly because most surviving bullets have
been bought up by conspiracy buffs. He was looking for someone to
analyze them. I thought it was interesting and that it would be a neat
project, so I agreed."
To find a qualified metallurgist and forensic expert, Spiegelman had to
look no further than to one of the key figures behind the NRC study in
the first place -- William Tobin, a decorated FBI agent who in
retirement had made a veritable second career out of testifying against
his former employer where its evidentiary techniques were concerned.
Spiegelman and Tobin turned to Texas A&M research chemist William James
and D. Max Roundhill, former head of the Department of Chemistry at
Washington State University and now a consultant in Austin, for the
chemical portion of their analysis. Finally, Spiegelman recruited Dr.
Simon J. Sheather, professor and head of the Texas A&M Department of
Statistics, at the writing stage of the project.
In their study, James analyzed the chemical composition of 30 bullets --
10 from each of three boxes of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets that
originated from two of the only four separate lots ever produced. Using
a measurement approach similar to Guinn's, they applied more appropriate
standards, such as additional chemical elements beyond those considered
at the time, as well as a known quality control procedure. They also
analyzed physical samples with a known geometry.
In comparing their data to Guinn's testimony as well as to NRC report
findings, the team determined that many bullets within a box of
Mannlicher-Carcano bullets have similar composition, leading them to
conclude that two-element chance matches to assassination fragments are
not extraordinarily rare -- even less rare, considering they came from
the same box.
Based on their findings, not to mention the international significance
of the Kennedy assassination, Spiegelman and his team say it is
"scientifically desirable" for the bullet fragments to be reanalyzed.
Kennedy once said during a Yale commencement address, "The great enemy
of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and
dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
Spiegelman claims that "by properly reanalyzing the bullet fragments,
our nation has a chance to shatter a myth about the JFK assassination."
"The reanalysis should include at least the seven elements identified in
the NRC report, should establish the scientific basis for matching
fragments originating from a single bullet, and should address the
critically important issues of bullet and source heterogeneity," he adds.
Article Title: "Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination
Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible"
Adapted from materials provided by Texas A&M University, via
EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Kenneth A. Rahn
See my reply over on aaj, and this expose of their article:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/Spiegelman.html ,
which has been posted on my site for several months now.
Ken Rahn
(Not fooled by Spiegelman et al. at all.)
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-467A7...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
> The evidence continues to pile up, which proves that Dr. Guinn's
> analysis was badly flawed. This article in Science Daily, reports that
> some of the world's top experts, including a former forensic expert for
> the FBI have thoroughly discredited Guinn's procedures.
>
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517142528.htm
>
>
> Science News
> Bullet Evidence Challenges Findings In JFK Assassination
>
> ScienceDaily (May 17, 2007) ‹ Researchers at Texas A&M University are
aeffects
> Dream on, Robert, because I know it's what you want to hear. But it's wrong.
> See my reply over on aaj, and this expose of their article:http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/Spiegelman.html,
> which has been posted on my site for several months now.
you posted a reply on your website? Well, why then of course, you've
cleared it all up.... LMAO! C'mon perfessor.... you can do better than
that, can't you?
> Ken Rahn
> (Not fooled by Spiegelman et al. at all.)
>
> "Robert Harris" <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Kenneth A. Rahn
on my Web site for months now. Turns out that the bullets they got are
lacking in the large-scale heterogeneity that is an essential ingredient
of WCC/MC ammunition. Without it, their "conclusions" mean little or
nothing. Sorry to have to break this news to you, when I know you are so
anxious to believe that Guinn's original NAA was flawed. It is alive and
well, thanks.
Ken Rahn
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-467A7...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
John Fiorentino
Have you been living in a cave?
John F.
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-467A7...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
> The evidence continues to pile up, which proves that Dr. Guinn's
> analysis was badly flawed. This article in Science Daily, reports that
> some of the world's top experts, including a former forensic expert for
> the FBI have thoroughly discredited Guinn's procedures.
>
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517142528.htm
>
>
> Science News
> Bullet Evidence Challenges Findings In JFK Assassination
>
> ScienceDaily (May 17, 2007) < Researchers at Texas A&M University are
Stug...@aol.com
> Old news, Bob, and these guys were wrong, anyhow. I have had the rebuttal
> on my Web site for months now. Turns out that the bullets they got are
> lacking in the large-scale heterogeneity that is an essential ingredient
> of WCC/MC ammunition. Without it, their "conclusions" mean little or
> nothing. Sorry to have to break this news to you, when I know you are so
> anxious to believe that Guinn's original NAA was flawed. It is alive and
> well, thanks.
>
> Ken Rahn
This continues to be one of the most ridiculous responses ever by Ken
(which says a lot) and the fact that LNers, who know better, stomach
it, is one of the main reasons I have been avoiding this forum.
We analyzed 30 bullets. Guinn analyzed 14. We used bullet
standards. Guinn did not. We had more sophisticated equipment than
Guinn. Yet given two different sets of results from two different
sets of scientists, Ken simply takes Guinn's work as established
fact-- that is pure rubbish by any scientific standard. The fact
is that when scientists have attempted to duplicate Guinn's results,
something Ken should have done but inexcusably avoided, they could not
confirm his conclusions. This is a clear indication of how biased
and over-zealous Ken is on this subject. At BEST, Ken should be
arguing that, absent additional studies and/or additional information
about Oswald's non-existent bullet boxes, he cannot tell if our data,
as opposed to Guinn's, should apply. As a point of fact, it is only
Ken, not us, not even Guinn, who argue that the Guinn bullets
represent a random sample from which to draw population inferences.
The Guinn work is dead. The CABL has absolutely no dispositive value
as to conspiracy or no-conspiracy. If the intelligent LNs on this
forum-- the Jean Davisons, the John McAdams, etc.-- spent half as
much time going after Rahn as they did going after Judyth, the matter
would be over. Barb goes after Judyth. Lifton has gone after
Judyth. Even Jack White has gone after Judyth. The number of LNers
who are willing to openly disavow Rahn's equally ludicrous NAA work:
ZERO.
-Stu
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Good one Chuck!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Feb 24, 3:44 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 10:02 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Robert:
>
> > Have you been living in a cave?
>
> > John F.
>
> Not a cave...a storm drain.
Robert Harris
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
> Old news, Bob, and these guys were wrong, anyhow. I have had the rebuttal
> on my Web site for months now. Turns out that the bullets they got are
> lacking in the large-scale heterogeneity that is an essential ingredient
> of WCC/MC ammunition.
Well, those dummies!
What peer reviewed journal did you submit your paper to, Ken?
Robert Harris
John Fiorentino
You may also be interested in reading my rebuttal to the Spiegelman et al
paper which will be published soon in the Annals of Applied Statistics.
You can read a draft here: http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html
Just scroll down the page until you come to NAA&JFK: Can Revisionism take us
home? and click on the link for the pdf.
Spiegelman, et al also wrote a rather anemic "response" which is there also.
And since all of the perceived duplicity of the "Warrenistas" is so
fascinating to you, here is your chance to see REAL duplicity in action by
the trusted men of science.
Quite a sad story actually.
John F.
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:reharris1-467A7...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
> The evidence continues to pile up, which proves that Dr. Guinn's
> analysis was badly flawed. This article in Science Daily, reports that
> some of the world's top experts, including a former forensic expert for
> the FBI have thoroughly discredited Guinn's procedures.
>
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517142528.htm
>
>
> Science News
> Bullet Evidence Challenges Findings In JFK Assassination
>
> ScienceDaily (May 17, 2007) < Researchers at Texas A&M University are
Stug...@aol.com
question, Bob. Someone did that at the Bethesda Conference in 2004
and it gave Ken the opportunity to parse words.
Ken's work did *appear* in a peer-reviewed journal. But his piece
was was *not fully peer-reviewed.* It appeared in a tribute edition
to Vincent Guinn after his death. The editors admitted they took it
more as a tribute to Guinn than for its scientific value. Ken did
not divulge the fact that his work appeared in a tribute edition to
Guinn either at the Bethesda Conference or on the forums. I had to
expose the full story myself. Judge for yourself if an experienced
scientist can figure out if he is being subject to full peer-review or
weak review.
As for the "stuff" you are hearing from Fiorentino. This is the same
guy who argued stridently for a two-hit/one-miss scenario for months
with Andrew Mason. When our work came out SUGGESTING the POSSIBILITY
that there could be three bullets in the recovered material,
Fiorentino actually had the gall to say that the evidence he used in
his favor-- for instance the Tague miss-- would suddenly lose all
favor with him if it were learned that there were three shots. He
went so far as to imply that he would accuse Tague of making up the
missed shot story before accepting that there were four shots.
This, and the circle-the-wagons approach LNs (including John F) have
applied to Ken, is a good part of the reason why I stay away from the
forum.
-Stu
John Canal
Stug...@aol.com says...
>
>
>> Old news, Bob, and these guys were wrong, anyhow. I have had the rebuttal
>> on my Web site for months now. Turns out that the bullets they got are
>> lacking in the large-scale heterogeneity that is an essential ingredient
>> of WCC/MC ammunition. Without it, their "conclusions" mean little or
>> nothing. Sorry to have to break this news to you, when I know you are so
>> anxious to believe that Guinn's original NAA was flawed. It is alive and
>> well, thanks.
>>
>> Ken Rahn
>
>This continues to be one of the most ridiculous responses ever by Ken
>(which says a lot) and the fact that LNers, who know better, stomach
>it, is one of the main reasons I have been avoiding this forum.
>
>We analyzed 30 bullets. Guinn analyzed 14. We used bullet
>standards. Guinn did not. We had more sophisticated equipment than
>Guinn. Yet given two different sets of results from two different
>sets of scientists, Ken simply takes Guinn's work as established
>fact--
Stu,
Excuse me for butting into a discussion that I probably shouldn't be butting
into......but I've a couple of honest, non-technical questions for you, if you
don't mind.
First, do you think Guinn was lying about his readings?
Ok, assuming you said, "no", then here's this. Do you admit that, regardless of
him testing "only" 14 samples, the fact there were two distinct groups of Sb
concentrations in the tested lead, could be reasonably considered a coincidence
(even a not-so-surprising one).....if there really was more than two bullets
that hit the victims?
What sincerely bothers me is that the more and more I read the different CT
theories over the years I see more and more of what I call the "Dog Ate My
Homework" (DAMH) evidence presented by the CTs that advance these theories.
I mean, just like this NAA....you say there could have been three (or more)
bullets...which means you would also say there could easily have been three or
more groups of Sb concentrations......but there weren't....just two. Indeed, I
could buy a few DAMH evidence proposals, but, considering the following, enough
is enough, IMHO.
Heck, LNs are asked to swallow the notion that there were shooters from the
Dal-Tex Bldg, storm drain, GK, overpass, and God knows where else...but it's the
old DAMH crap...no one saw any other shooters....not to mention, no other shell
casings, no testable fragments not matched exclusively to the sixth floor rifle,
no other rifles, etc., etc. etc. to the point of ad nauseam.
And, also for the three or more bullets theories, there was only one bullet base
and one nose portion found...there we go again....more DAMH ev.--the other base
or nose disappeared?
And only one entry and exit to his head...most CTs say either that the second
bullet went through head damage that was already there, that HB&F didn't see
other entry/exit wounds....just more DAMH stuff, if you ask me.
Or like the frangible, exlosive bullet that left no traces...more frickin DAMH
ev.
Heck, Stu, I could go on and on--e.g. if there was no SBT where did the other
lead go? Oops, sorry I asked---it was DAMH time again....you LNs have got to be
more open minded and believe us...ya sure.
Sorry Stu, I don't mean to get sarcastic, but Hell, I think if there had been
two bullets, that hit the victims (as we LNs insist), but Guinn's NAA results
showed there were three, not two, distinct groups (Sb conc.), you CTs would have
made Guinn a hero to the CT's cause, trumpeting his work from the highest
rooftops....and there might have been little, if any, mention of Tobin, et. al,
on this NG.
Just my not-very-much-listened-to opinions...that's all.
Thanks for you your answers...and I didn't mean to rant on like that.
John C.
[...]
>-Stu
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7525772ccdded22e
The entire NAA argument can, of course, be rightly and properly filed
in the following file-cabinet drawer:
"A WHOLE LOT TO DO ABOUT VERY LITTLE."
And anybody with any (common) sense knows why the NAA debate can be
filed in said drawer.
Because:
Since John B. Connally Jr. was positively hit by just ONE bullet on
11/22/63....and that ONE bullet was positively CE399 (with only kooks
thinking that that bullet is a "plant" or a "substitute")....then ANY
FRAGMENTS REMOVED FROM GOVERNOR CONNALLY'S BODY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO
HAVE COME FROM BULLET CE399.
Period.
Mark VII.
Bring down the curtain on this act.
Or, to quote my main LN man, Vincent T. Bugliosi, on this very topic:
"The movements and handling of President Kennedy's stretcher
negates the possibility that the bullet {CE399} could have originated
from the president's stretcher. .... The whole issue of what stretcher
the bullet was found on, Connally's or some unknown person's, is a
giant nonissue. Since we know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's
Carcano rifle, and we know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it
had to have been found on Connally's stretcher." -- VB; Via
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007); Page 811 and Endnotes Page 431
--- AND: ---
"Even if the new findings {from 2002 to 2004, not the 2007
study} were to render NAA, and hence {Dr. Vincent} Guinn's
conclusions, invalid, we DO know that the stretcher bullet was fired
from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of ALL other weapons.
"Since THAT is definite, what is the likelihood that a bullet
found on CONNALLY'S stretcher, which we know was fired from Oswald's
gun, is not the same bullet that deposited its missing fragments in
Connally's wrist? Next to nothing.
"In other words, when all is said and done, what difference does
it make if it turns out that the NAA tests are completely invalid?
"But there is a more important point to be made. Let's not
forget that the NAA conclusions by Guinn...are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT
with all the other evidence showing that Oswald was at the sniper's
nest window and it was his Carcano rifle that fired the only bullets
that hit Kennedy.
"This other, independent evidence necessarily increases the
likelihood that Guinn's separate NAA conclusions are accurate." --
Vince Bugliosi; Pages 436-437 of "RH" Endnotes (c.2007)
================
In addition to the above logic-filled comments made by Mr. Bugliosi in
his exemplary book, allow me to offer up some additional remarks that
are pretty much of equal importance on the "common sense" and "sheer
luck" scales:
What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took
place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from MORE THAN ONE GUN striking
the victims in JFK's limousine on Elm Street....and yet, after the
bullets stopped flying and the missiles and fragments were examined,
NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-C2766 gun turned out to
be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Lee
Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the source for ALL of the
bullets and fragments that hit any victims on Elm Street?
In other words -- if a multi-gun plot really did end the life of John
F. Kennedy, how is it POSSIBLE that those conspirators got lucky
enough to have none of the non-Oswald bullets (or even fragments
thereof) discovered by anybody?
Would anybody be willing to take those incredibly-low odds to Vegas? I
wouldn't want to.
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e68af2a823062f43
Bud
Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> On Feb 24, 1:29�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7525772c...
> It's even sillier than that, David, because the conspirators would've
> had to take into account IN ADVANCE that a scientific technique called
> NAA (known to very few in 1963/1964) might be used IN THE FUTURE and
> show fragments from different weapons with different Sb concentrations-
> thus exposing the 'plot'.
Another thing to consider is that this science carried no weight
with the kooks for all the decades it was uncontested valid science.
It seems only to have become significant to them recently when it came
under fire.
aeffects
> On Feb 24, 11:27 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What peer reviewed journal did you submit your paper to, Ken?
>
> > Robert Harris
>
>
> On any subject?
>
> (YouTube doesn't count.)
lookey all the Nutter congregate..... when confronted, they asseble
looking for excuses, good show Neuter's.... unfortuantely the NAA was not
only DOA, its now rotting in its own foolishness
justm...@gmail.com
Similar to you Healy, rotting in your own foolishness. New word you
learned? ASSEBLE??? roflmao what a putz.
You'll type anything just for the sake of typing, no matter how stupid
or incoherent it is.
Robert Harris
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Robert:
>
> You may also be interested in reading my rebuttal to the Spiegelman et al
> paper which will be published soon in the Annals of Applied Statistics.
>
> You can read a draft here: http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html
LOL!!
So, by a "paper", you meant a letter to the editor:-)
Let's see if I understand your "logic" John. You challenged these
scientists' conclusion that:
"If the assassination fragments are derived from three
or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the
additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr.
Oswald."
Are you suggesting then, that it is likely that no shots missed that
day, and that it is more "likely" that three shots from Oswald all hit
the President and all fragmented?
I'm sorry John, but to anyone who has seriously studied this case,
that's just goofy - just like your claim that "It makes no sense to talk
about probabilities of evidence" - except of course to those trying to
promote ridiculously improbable arguments:-)
BTW, John. Are you a statistician by profession?
Do you have relevant degrees in that field, which put you in the same
class with the people you are trying to refute??
If not, then can you point to a single, peer reviewed article from a
legitimately qualified professional which disputes their conclusion?
Can you name even one?
Robert Harris
YoHarvey
> On Feb 24, 11:27 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Robert Harris
>
>
> On any subject?
>
> (YouTube doesn't count.)
As for the "stuff" you are hearing from Fiorentino. This is the same guy
who argued stridently for a two-hit/one-miss scenario for months with
Andrew Mason. When our work came out SUGGESTING the POSSIBILITY that
there could be three bullets in the recovered material, Fiorentino
actually had the gall to say that the evidence he used in his favor-- for
instance the Tague miss-- would suddenly lose all favor with him if it
were learned that there were three shots. He went so far as to imply that
he would accuse Tague of making up the missed shot story before accepting
that there were four shots. This, and the circle-the-wagons approach LNs
(including John F) have applied to Ken, is a good part of the reason why I
stay away from the forum.
stugra? We can't say good bye...until you leave! You claim you "stay
away from this forum" yet continue to post. You have any relatives named
David Healy? The NAA at this point is argumentative...and unimportant.
The totality of the physical evidence points in only one direction....LHO
is guilty...by any standard. Give us a rest and make your case elsewhere.
Robert Harris
<c87fb913-33bd-44c6...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7525772ccdded22e
>
>
>
>
> The entire NAA argument can, of course, be rightly and properly filed
> in the following file-cabinet drawer:
>
> "A WHOLE LOT TO DO ABOUT VERY LITTLE."
>
> And anybody with any (common) sense knows why the NAA debate can be
> filed in said drawer.
>
> Because:
>
> Since John B. Connally Jr. was positively hit by just ONE bullet on
> 11/22/63....and that ONE bullet was positively CE399 (with only kooks
> thinking that that bullet is a "plant" or a "substitute")....then ANY
> FRAGMENTS REMOVED FROM GOVERNOR CONNALLY'S BODY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO
> HAVE COME FROM BULLET CE399.
Then why did Connally state that the actual bullet fell out in an
examining rooom and was retrieved by a nurse, David?
And why did every one of the four men who handled it, refuse to confirm
that CE399 was the same bullet?
That's 100% confirmation that CE399 was not the original bullet, David.
Now, if you disagree with all that, then why don't refute these facts
before pretending that the FBI's story is a given?
>
> Period.
>
> Mark VII.
>
> Bring down the curtain on this act.
I think the curtain just fell on you David:-)
>
> Or, to quote my main LN man, Vincent T. Bugliosi, on this very topic:
>
>
> "The movements and handling of President Kennedy's stretcher
> negates the possibility that the bullet {CE399} could have originated
> from the president's stretcher. .... The whole issue of what stretcher
> the bullet was found on,
Bugliosi was not that slow in his younger days, David.
The "whole issue" is whether CE399 was the actual bullet. And the
evidence is indisputible that it was not.
> Connally's or some unknown person's, is a
> giant nonissue. Since we know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's
> Carcano rifle, and we know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it
> had to have been found on Connally's stretcher." -- VB; Via
> "Reclaiming History" (c.2007); Page 811 and Endnotes Page 431
>
>
> --- AND: ---
>
>
>
> "Even if the new findings {from 2002 to 2004, not the 2007
> study} were to render NAA, and hence {Dr. Vincent} Guinn's
> conclusions, invalid, we DO know that the stretcher bullet was fired
> from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of ALL other weapons.
David, this is quite embarrassing to you I am sure, so I don't want to
rub it in. But why would you want to post something that has been so
thoroughly discredited??
Robert Harris
Stug...@aol.com
It's difficult for people to grasp the concept: yes it is a coincidence,
but how much of a coincidence. Unlike certain coincidences-- for
instance, the coincidence that three people show up at the home of woman
and boast about killing the President of the United States, and those two
people having absolutely nothing to do with the eventual killing of the
President by the third-- we can attempt to put odds on it. First off (and
something that Ken Rahn has never understood) is that we are dealing with
a limited set of of possiblities here, two versus three or four rounds.
If you told me we were going to go out hunting using ammo from the same
box or ammo from the same boxes purchased at the same store, and then
perform CABL on the rounds, I would say there is a good chance that an
analyst would undercount the bullets. That is why every expert I've ever
consulted said the best you can say is that there are "at least X" rounds.
I'm surprised you would argue about other evidence being restrictive when
you are one of the very few LNs who admit that there was an effort to skew
the record, including on the most basic physical evidence.
-Stu
Stug...@aol.com
fine but misses the point and borderls on anti-intellectual. There are
plenty of coincidences in the world. Scientists have to figure out the
chances that the results they get, and oftentimes WANT, are the result of
chance. LNs got a result they want; the reality is that if you and went
out shooting using ammo from the same box of bullets of bullets purchased
from the same store or the same city, there would be a tremendous chance
of a false positive.
Just because you see what you want to see, doesn't exclude other
possibilities. And whether or not Oswald acted alone, the CABL is
completely useless in advancing the case. It would be like me touting
George O'Toole's voice-analysis as evidence of conspiracy. In fact,
voice-stress analysis is probably more widely practiced by experts than
CABL, which has no American lab even currently practices.
-Stu
Robert Harris
<2abf3669-0ace-465c...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:27 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > What peer reviewed journal did you submit your paper to, Ken?
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Hey Bob...have you ever had any peer reviewed work published anywhere?
Of course not.
I don't write technical papers like the one Rahn wrote. In fact, I doubt
that I know much more on this subject than he does.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<35b1a47b-04e7-4622...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 1:09 am, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
>
> > I don't write technical papers like the one Rahn wrote. In fact, I doubt
> > that I know much more on this subject than he does.
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Why do you hold Ken Rahn to a different standard for NAA than you hold
> yourself to for all of your theories?
I don't.
That's why I cite articles about people who really ARE qualified, unlike
Rahn or myself.
>
> (Cue crickets, chirp, chirp, chirp...)
>
> If your tireless work for justice is so convincing, let's see you skip
> the YouTube silliness and approach some scientific journal with your
> hard-hitting "sh*tman" theory.
My arguments are not technical in nature. Anyone can see those people
react to the shot at 285 and every one of them confirmed it in their
testimonies, which were in turn, corroborated by the large majority of
witnesses that the final shots were closely bunched.
Perhaps, you need to watch the video again, so that you understand that.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ql6VqZDiC6s
The only part that IS technical is the analysis by Dr. Alvarez,
confirming a loud, startling noise at frame 285. And his paper was
submitted to the top American journal on Physics. To date, there has not
been a single professional in that field, who disagrees with him.
Hope that helps you Chuck.
Robert Harris
aeffects
wrote:
when you got nothing else toots-e-roll check the spelling.... c'mon
tuna crotch you old dried up crone..... we KNOW you CAN'T do any
better than that....
Tom
Robert,
The testing and the data concerning this part of the case have been
done not to prove either side of the debate. Anyone who can read can
see clearly for them selves that no amount of data will ever convince
some people. For some it is far better to deny the truth of a thing
than it is to admit in the face of data they might have been in error.
More is the pity. The work done to date was done to explore what we
can know, with whatever certainty the numbers and the data treatment
can offer us as investigators.
The wonderful thing that happen for us is the illumination of the
central question before us all, namely, what can we say about the
bullets and what should be jettison as either speculation or biased
regard for the evidence. This is what we can say at this point in time
about the determination chemical composition relative to the crime.
First, fundamentally the nature and internal configuration of the
metallic crystalline structure has been clearly shown to be highly
variant and physically heterogeneous in its make-up. This is not to
say that all Western bullets are heterogeneous, however, the structure
and disposition of the trace contaminants in the lead substrate
disallow broad and sweeping conclusions about what the observed
amounts of various elements actually means. You do not have to be a
PhD or particularly gifted as a scientist to see this with clarity,
all one has to do is look and the photographs of the lead in cross-
section as has been done for us by Randich and Grant.
Second, using the same basic technique and a design of experiment
whose intention was to explore and quantify the actual value the
measured amounts of the trace elements should be given shows us that
Dr. Guinn central conclusion about the bullets and fragments in
evidence had no defendable basis. All the nattering about that has
gone on for years was based fundamentally on the assumption of the
conclusion prior to the formulation of the theory. While this may be a
tool often used by those in theology it has no honest place in
science. Dr Speigelman and the team in College Station gave us this
finding. More than a few people have defended Dr. Guinn, but none has
done so using science accepted and proven to be sound and
reproducible.
On the contrary, what we have seen in the last five years is the
deconstruction of the entire basis for comparative bullet lead
analysis. That this has come about during the course of our own work
really only allowed for the proper questions and the right people
willing to draw fire for asking the question to come forward. These
are people who have some idea what they are doing and the limitations
they know to be part of their professional work. A wise man once
wrote, ”In spite of the proliferation of books, there is much evidence
that has been overlooked or improperly interpreted; and despite the
extensive investigations, the public mind is filled with doubt.”
Those words were written 41 years ago and it is to the great discredit
of some of the people who come to this group wearing their bias as a
badge of honor that the NAA data and its probative value continues to
be touted as a solution, when in fact it has been shown to offer us
nothing. The nature of the bullets and their observable properties are
less than is required to extinguish reasonable doubt. None of those
who will no doubt respond to my posting with polished words have had,
or will ever have the courage to stop writing, pry open their wallets,
and get us all some more data. That is my answer to the biased
contributors to this little group, not to put too fine a point on
this, please, put up or shut up. You’ve had forty years to cobble
together something more than arcane statistics and noble conclusions
without once having obtained a single Western round and done anything
substantially more scientific than admire the patina of its brass.
Tom Pinkston
David Von Pein
Only if you wish to believe the goofball story about the bullet being
planted or substituted.
And why would anyone even begin to believe a silly thing like that
(esp. since such a "planting" is totally unneeded to "Frame the
patsy")?
It must be embarrassing for CTers to have to behave this way when it
comes to virtually all of the evidence in the JFK case.
Isn't it, Bob?
FACT:
If Bullet CE399 was not planted or "switched out" (and there's no hard
evidence to indicate it was either of those things; in fact, to
believe it was is just idiotic from even a supposed conspirator's
POV), then CE399 WAS inside John Connally's body on 11/22/63...which
means that the fragments plucked from his body had to have come from
CE399. Period.
(Go rally 'round your "planted" bush now, Bob.)
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <c87fb913-33bd-44c6...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7525772ccdded22e
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The entire NAA argument can, of course, be rightly and properly filed
> > in the following file-cabinet drawer:
> >
> > "A WHOLE LOT TO DO ABOUT VERY LITTLE."
> >
> > And anybody with any (common) sense knows why the NAA debate can be
> > filed in said drawer.
> >
> > Because:
> >
> > Since John B. Connally Jr. was positively hit by just ONE bullet on
> > 11/22/63....and that ONE bullet was positively CE399 (with only kooks
> > thinking that that bullet is a "plant" or a "substitute")....then ANY
> > FRAGMENTS REMOVED FROM GOVERNOR CONNALLY'S BODY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO
> > HAVE COME FROM BULLET CE399.
>
> Then why did Connally state that the actual bullet fell out in an
> examining rooom and was retrieved by a nurse, David?
Connally was near mortally wounded, and probably in shock. A bullet
falling from him would hit the hard linoleum floor and do what, stay
where it landed? And then what happens, does the nurse hold it up for
the critically wounded victim to see?
> And why did every one of the four men who handled it, refuse to confirm
> that CE399 was the same bullet?
How could they tell if it was or not? Did they mark it in some way?
> That's 100% confirmation that CE399 was not the original bullet, David.
Nice try, Bob. Not confirming does not equal denial it was the
bullet they handled.
> Now, if you disagree with all that, then why don't refute these facts
> before pretending that the FBI's story is a given?
Why don`t you quote each of the four witnesses you referred to
saying CE399 w3as not the bullet they saw?
Jean Davison produced an interview of Tomlinson where he said CE399
looked like the bullet he found.
> > Period.
> >
> > Mark VII.
> >
> > Bring down the curtain on this act.
>
> I think the curtain just fell on you David:-)
>
>
> >
> > Or, to quote my main LN man, Vincent T. Bugliosi, on this very topic:
> >
> >
> > "The movements and handling of President Kennedy's stretcher
> > negates the possibility that the bullet {CE399} could have originated
> > from the president's stretcher. .... The whole issue of what stretcher
> > the bullet was found on,
>
> Bugliosi was not that slow in his younger days, David.
>
> The "whole issue" is whether CE399 was the actual bullet. And the
> evidence is indisputible that it was not.
<snicker> indisputable? It was fired by the rifle found where people
said shots were fired from, and found where the victims of that
shooting were taken. What kind of contortions are needed for any other
possibility?
> > Connally's or some unknown person's, is a
> > giant nonissue. Since we know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's
> > Carcano rifle, and we know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it
> > had to have been found on Connally's stretcher." -- VB; Via
> > "Reclaiming History" (c.2007); Page 811 and Endnotes Page 431
> >
> >
> > --- AND: ---
> >
> >
> >
> > "Even if the new findings {from 2002 to 2004, not the 2007
> > study} were to render NAA, and hence {Dr. Vincent} Guinn's
> > conclusions, invalid, we DO know that the stretcher bullet was fired
> > from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of ALL other weapons.
>
> David, this is quite embarrassing to you I am sure, so I don't want to
> rub it in. But why would you want to post something that has been so
> thoroughly discredited??
Kooks don`t like this, so they declare it "discredited".What could
matter less, nobody thinks they are really trying to determine what
actually happened anyway.
yeuhd
> It's difficult for people to grasp the concept: yes it is a coincidence,
> but how much of a coincidence. Unlike certain coincidences-- for
> instance, the coincidence that three people show up at the home of woman
> and boast about killing the President of the United States, and those two
> people having absolutely nothing to do with the eventual killing of the
> President by the third-- we can attempt to put odds on it.
You're obviously referring to the Sylvia Odio incident, but that is not
what Odio described happened. Nobody said anything about killing Kennedy
or anyone else when the three men were at her door in Dallas. It was only
in a phone call to Odio the following day that one of the two Cuban men,
"Leopoldo" told her that "you Cubans" (apparently referring to anti-Castro
Cubans like Odio) should have killed Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs
operation.
Gerry Simone (O)
:-)
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:c166ace4-ccb9-4be4...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
John, I think your reply to Stu on this issue makes a TON of common
sense. A FIVE STAR explanation on what can be a very dry subject (NAA)
to the uninitiated.
Ben Holmes
yeuhd says...
>
>On Feb 25, 1:54=A0am, Stugra...@aol.com wrote:
>> It's difficult for people to grasp the concept: =A0yes it is a coincidence=
>,
>> but how much of a coincidence. =A0Unlike certain coincidences-- for
>> instance, the coincidence that three people show up at the home of woman
>> and boast about killing the President of the United States, and those two
>> people having absolutely nothing to do with the eventual killing of the
>> President by the third-- we can attempt to put odds on it.
>
>You're obviously referring to the Sylvia Odio incident, but that is not
>what Odio described happened. Nobody said anything about killing Kennedy
>or anyone else when the three men were at her door in Dallas. It was only
>in a phone call to Odio the following day that one of the two Cuban men,
>"Leopoldo" told her that "you Cubans" (apparently referring to anti-Castro
>Cubans like Odio) should have killed Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs
>operation.
LNT'ers are incapable of being honest about the evidence - since it really does
*NOT* support their position.
So they frequently lie about it.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <a057b415-821b-4047-bc56-39228adf3...@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
This is confusing. Got your wires crossed, Ben?
claviger
Howard Donahue came to this same conclusion about 20 years ago. He
said this case will never be solved by lead analysis alone (CABL).
Testing of any copper residue collected from the intrance wound or
traces found inside the skull would be scientifically determinate.
Evidently there were scrapings of the entrance wound in the skull
taken during the autopsy. After being promised full access to all
evidence the Clark Panel on Medical Evidence requested these
scrapings. Their request was denied. So either Ramsey Clark broke his
promise or the Federal government denied access to this evidence by
Attorney General Clark. Wonder why?
John Canal
Chuck Schuyler says...
<Bottom Post>
>On Feb 24, 12:34=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Stu,
>>
>> Excuse me for butting into a discussion that I probably shouldn't be butti=
>ng
>> into......but I've a couple of honest, non-technical questions for you, if=
> you
>> don't mind.
>>
>> First, do you think Guinn was lying about his readings?
>>
>> Ok, assuming you said, "no", then here's this. Do you admit that, regardle=
>ss of
>> him testing "only" 14 samples, the fact there were two distinct groups of =
>Sb
>> concentrations in the tested lead, could be reasonably considered a coinci=
>dence
>> (even a not-so-surprising one).....if there really was more than two bulle=
>ts
>> that hit the victims?
>>
>> What sincerely bothers me is that the more and more I read the different C=
>T
>> theories over the years I see more and more of what I call the "Dog Ate My=
>
>> Homework" (DAMH) evidence presented by the CTs that advance these theories=
>.
>>
>> I mean, just like this NAA....you say there could have been three (or more=
>)
>> bullets...which means you would also say there could easily have been thre=
>e or
>> more groups of Sb concentrations......but there weren't....just two. Indee=
>d, I
>> could buy a few DAMH evidence proposals, but, considering the following, e=
>nough
>> is enough, IMHO.
>>
>> Heck, LNs are asked to swallow the notion that there were shooters from th=
>e
>> Dal-Tex Bldg, storm drain, GK, overpass, and God knows where else...but it=
>'s the
>> old DAMH crap...no one saw any other shooters....not to mention, no other =
>shell
>> casings, no testable fragments not matched exclusively to the sixth floor =
>rifle,
>> no other rifles, etc., etc. etc. to the point of ad nauseam.
>>
>> And, also for the three or more bullets theories, there was only one bulle=
>t base
>> and one nose portion found...there we go again....more DAMH ev.--the other=
> base
>> or nose disappeared?
>>
>> And only one entry and exit to his head...most CTs say either that the sec=
>ond
>> bullet went through head damage that was already there, that HB&F didn't s=
>ee
>> other entry/exit wounds....just more DAMH stuff, if you ask me.
>>
>> Or like the frangible, exlosive bullet that left no traces...more frickin =
>DAMH
>> ev.
>>
>> Heck, Stu, I could go on and on--e.g. if there was no SBT where did the ot=
>her
>> lead go? Oops, sorry I asked---it was DAMH time again....you LNs have got =
>to be
>> more open minded and believe us...ya sure.
>>
>> Sorry Stu, I don't mean to get sarcastic, but Hell, I think if there had b=
>een
>> two bullets, that hit the victims (as we LNs insist), but Guinn's NAA resu=
>lts
>> showed there were three, not two, distinct groups (Sb conc.), you CTs woul=
>d have
>> made Guinn a hero to the CT's cause, trumpeting his work from the highest
>> rooftops....and there might have been little, if any, mention of Tobin, et=
>. al,
>> on this NG.
>>
>> Just my not-very-much-listened-to opinions...that's all.
>>
>> Thanks for you your answers...and I didn't mean to rant on like that.
>>
>> John C.
>
>John, I think your reply to Stu on this issue makes a TON of common
>sense. A FIVE STAR explanation on what can be a very dry subject (NAA)
>to the uninitiated.
Thanks Chuck. BTW, I'm not sure how long you've been posting here, but in the 8
or 9 years that I have, IMO, the nature of the threads has evolved
remarkably...to the chagrin of the CTs I'd think.
What I'm trying to say is that, if the posts re. Judyth, submitted by Marsh, re.
Viet Nam, Iraq, and Iran, re. OT subjects, etc., were filtered out, unlike
several years ago, it seems to me that there would be hardly any threads left
started by CTs putting their theories "on the table", so to speak, to be picked
apart by LNs. IMHO, they may be circling their wagons, in spite of all the talk
about the majority of Americans thinking there had been a conspiracy..
Actually, I can't think of any CT, besides Harris, who has put their pretty much
"complete" theory on the table lately--although several have included their
theories on their websites...where they wouldn't enjoy the fully scrutiny of the
LNs posting here. And, BTW, I don't think Harris is convincing many other CTs,
much less any LNs, his theory is plausible....did his storm drain shooter take a
rope with him to secure himself in case the light rain in Dallas earlier on
11-22-63 sudenly changed to a torrential gully-washer that might have flushed
him far down the storm drain....that is, of course, if the construction of same
would allow that.
Even this NAA thread is not really about advancing any conspiracy theory. It's
actually simply about the questioning of Guinn's tests---as we well know, no
credible ev. for more than two bullets hitting the victims has ever been
produced, anyway.
John Canal
robcap...@netscape.com
"Old news, Bob, and these guys were wrong, anyhow. I have had the
rebuttal on my Web site for months now. Turns out that the bullets
they got are lacking in the large-scale heterogeneity that is an
essential ingredient of WCC/MC ammunition. Without it, their
"conclusions" mean little or nothing. Sorry to have to break this news
to you, when I know you are so anxious to believe that Guinn's
original NAA was flawed. It is alive and well, thanks."
Ken Rahn
Why was Guinn testing ammo made in 1954 when the Winchester company
said the last ammo they made was 1944? What ammo was he testing?
> "Robert Harris" <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:reharris1-467A7...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:3e27852f-75cf-47df...@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 23, 10:52 pm, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
"Old news, Bob, and these guys were wrong, anyhow. I have had the
rebuttal on my Web site for months now. Turns out that the bullets
they got are lacking in the large-scale heterogeneity that is an
essential ingredient of WCC/MC ammunition. Without it, their
"conclusions" mean little or nothing. Sorry to have to break this news
to you, when I know you are so anxious to believe that Guinn's
original NAA was flawed. It is alive and well, thanks."
Ken Rahn
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why was Guinn testing ammo made in 1954 when the Winchester company
said the last ammo they made was 1944? What ammo was he testing?
The ammo they made for the CIA throufg the U S Marines in 1954 (4 million
rounds)
4th exhibit from the bottom
http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The "whole issue" is whether CE399 was the actual bullet. And the evidence is indisputible that it was not." <<<
"Only if you wish to believe the goofball story about the bullet being
planted or substituted."
Or the silly fact that CE399 was NEVER inside JFK or JBC. You know,
silly stuff like that.
"And why would anyone even begin to believe a silly thing like that
(esp. since such a "planting" is totally unneeded to "Frame the
patsy")?
It must be embarrassing for CTers to have to behave this way when it
comes to virtually all of the evidence in the JFK case."
Behave what way? You mean pointing out that all witnesses to the
discovery of CE399 saying the bullet presented as CE399 was NOT the
bullet they found? Or perhaps you mean that the WC could NEVER prove
CE399 was ever inside either victim? Make it clear for us CTers.
"Isn't it, Bob?
FACT:
If Bullet CE399 was not planted or "switched out" (and there's no hard
evidence to indicate it was either of those things; in fact, to
believe it was is just idiotic from even a supposed conspirator's
POV), then CE399 WAS inside John Connally's body on 11/22/63...which
means that the fragments plucked from his body had to have come from
CE399. Period."
Fact? NO hard evidence? I guess everyone who saw the bullet that was
found that day were all wrong when they said the bullet presented by
the WC was NOT the same bullet, huh? Are they all liars? I want you
to prove CE399 was INSIDE JBC and JFK.
"(Go rally 'round your "planted" bush now, Bob.)"
Go rally 'round your lying bush Dave.
robcap...@netscape.com
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3e27852f-75cf-47df...@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 23, 10:52 pm, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote:
>
> "Old news, Bob, and these guys were wrong, anyhow. I have had the
> rebuttal on my Web site for months now. Turns out that the bullets
> they got are lacking in the large-scale heterogeneity that is an
> essential ingredient of WCC/MC ammunition. Without it, their
> "conclusions" mean little or nothing. Sorry to have to break this news
> to you, when I know you are so anxious to believe that Guinn's
> original NAA was flawed. It is alive and well, thanks."
>
> Ken Rahn
> Why was Guinn testing ammo made in 1954 when the Winchester company
> said the last ammo they made was 1944? What ammo was he testing?
>
"The ammo they made for the CIA throufg the U S Marines in 1954 (4
million rounds) 4th exhibit from the bottomhttp://whokilledjfk.net/
Rifle.htm"
I knew that Tom, but thanks for the link. I wanted Rahn to explain to
us CTers how LHO would have gotten his hands on CIA (through the U.S.
Marines) purchased ammo. I'm sure he won't of course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On Feb 26, 8:11 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:
Great work, Robcap, Walt, Rossley, Jesus, Harris and crew. Good job.
I'm on your side now. You're getting closer, guys. Keep up the good
work. Good show. Excellent research. Atta boys, go get 'em. Keep
Googling. Don't let the b*stards get you down. You're making progress.
Fight the good fight. Make a new YouTube video, Gil. Take back our
country. Keep it up. Lurkers are getting the message. I think the case
is getting reopened next week. You're all patriots. The Kennedy family
is pleased.
What makes you think you would be welcomed by us?
We're very cautious of "Turncoats".
Loyalty to us is Doubtfull from one who turned his back on truth/justice
and, the American Way for 44 years.
To show "Sincerity" you can start by addressing these crimes by the
authorities>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------