New challenge to Guinn's NAA
Stug...@aol.com
The headline needs some adjustment for accuracy but the Washington
post has the following on its front page
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html
The journal article in question is in the Annals of Applied
Statistics.
I was lucky to find Cliff Spiegelman, a highly acclaimed statistician
who served on the NAS CABL panels, and interest him in looking into
the JFK stuff more thoroughly. Cliff, in turn, found several others
who lent their expertise to the analysis. The bottom line conclusion
here is one that I've been saying for several years now-- the
sampling frame used by Guinn (and Rahn and Sturdivan) for their
background study is inadequate; it isn't random, it is too small,
etc.
Hopefully Larry and Rahn can see past their predispositions to
acknowledge this fact.
Anyway, the raw study can be found here:
http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/629?confirm=a5d03c25
-Stu
Barb Junkkarinen
Excellent, Stu ... I had a call about a half hour ago from someone
telling me your NAA baby had made the front page of the Washington
Post! I was hoping someone would put the links online ... thanks ...
and congrats!
Barb :-)
>
John Fiorentino
William Tobin never analyzed bullet lead during his tenure at the FBI.
He was also fired from the TWA800 investigation by the FBI's James
Kallstrom.
Tobin has also been charged by the OIG with exercising "poor judgment" in
the "La Familia" case. And was criticized on numerous occasions throughout
that investigation by the OIG.
John F.
<Stug...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179356907.2...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
" "This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination
that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the
researchers said."
Total B.S. (of course).
Common sense ALONE (plus a little bit of knowledge about the JFK
ballistics evidence) totally debunk the above hunk of conspiracy-
leaning silliness. Here's why:
================================
Re.: The bullet fragments recovered in the JFK murder case.....
A bullet fragment from Warren Commission Exhibit #843 very likely came
from a WCC/MC bullet, and very likely (per NAA analysis) came from the
same bullet which also deposited fragments under Nellie Connally's
seat
and which deposited the two large fragments in the front seat of the
limo.
And the ONLY possible source of such extensive fragmentation of a
bullet within that limousine was President Kennedy's head.
It's my firm opinion that the NAA analysis of the JFK head fragment(s)
is not even needed to arrive at the obvious conclusion of: Lee Harvey
Oswald's own gun caused JFK's head injuries.
Because, as mentioned, there's NOTHING else that could have caused
Oswald's bullet to break apart in the manner that it did except John
F.
Kennedy's head, with the two largest (and heaviest) of the mangled
bullet fragments ending up to the FRONT of the victim.
Governor John Connally's injuries are positively ruled out as a source
of the front-seat fragments. This is because of the existence of
bullet
CE399 (found in the hospital where Connally was taken) and the fact
that Connally was struck by just ONE single bullet (per his doctors'
comments on this matter, plus the fact that if he were hit by multiple
bullets that were fragmenting badly within him....then WHERE in the
world are those fragments inside JBC's body? They aren't there.
Only a microscopic amount of lead (less than the weight of a "postage
stamp", per Dr. Gregory) was deposited in John Connally's body during
the shooting. It's silly to think that TWO or more bullets left only
this minuscule amount of lead and trace evidence behind in wake of the
shooting.
This fact also tends to buttress the Single-Bullet Theory and the
notion that Bullet #CE399 was certainly the bullet that left only very
minimal lead deposits behind in JBC's whole body (with a mere 2 grains
{approx.} missing from CE399's total mass).
Of course, all CTers enjoy trashing Dr. Guinn's analysis and his HSCA
testimony, as the conspiracists consider Guinn's 1978 analysis to be
completely outdated. But what I'd like to know is this.....
Just exactly how likely (odds-wise) is it that Dr. Vincent P. Guinn
would testify to the effect that TWO specific bullets (that both very
likely came from the barrel of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, via
Guinn's NAA results) were the only two bullets that can be linked to
any of the ballistics samples in the John Kennedy murder case....and
yet still NOT have Oswald's Carcano doing all of the damage to the
victims on November 22nd, 1963?
Even via 1970s-era NAA technology, what are the odds that Guinn's data
would end up revealing the likelihood that ONLY BULLETS FROM OSWALD'S
RIFLE STRUCK ANY VICTIMS ON 11/22/63?
My guess is this -- The odds of that type of scientific evidence
favoring the likelihood that only Oswald's gun was involved in the
assassination, and somehow having that data being totally FALSE, must
be fairly low indeed.
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e68af2a823062f43
Tom
Hi Everybody,
Reading the above gives me goosebumps. To think that after no less than
ten years of work on this problem that involved many months of finding
bullets, analyzing by ICP-AES, having two PhD. metallurgist examine the
samples, then having NAA done on them by my friend Cliff down at A&M, then
waiting two years to get this data published that the author can dismiss
such an effort with the pronouncement that it is "BS" and that for crying
out loud common sense must be the ultimate judge of science. Wow. When I
think that of all those years of work could have been avoided by simply
applying "common sense" I must confess I'm speechless.
David, I for one had one of the best days of my life yesterday when Stu
called and let me known Cliff's data was now in the public domain. The
list of people who helped Stu Wexler and me keep this effort going when it
seemed no one wanted to "get involved" in the JFK debate is long. Our goal
from the beginning was to explore Dr. Guinn's work and to see if his
conclusions stated almost thirty years ago could be supported by a
multi-disciplinary approach. That's right David, we decided years ago not
to simply accept the advice of various people to stop worrying about the
NAA data (BTW ,that included Vincent Guinn himself), that we did not know
what we were doing and that PhD's are the only folks able to analyze
anything.
When I'm lying on my deathbed one of the things I will be a peace about is
this effort. That I did something to make a difference in the case. That I
was not satisfied with merely sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing
but carp and complain at the efforts of others. I have learned so much
from this effort it is hard to even explain it all. Perhaps the most
important thing here was those involved did not assume they alone had all
the answers, that scientific discourse works, even when embroiled in
something as polemic as this case. Second to this was it restored in me my
faith in the better nature of people willing to take a chance, to have the
courage to explore, to learn to listen carefully, to have the will to wait
long periods of time for the next part of this story to unfold, to
correspond with civility with those totally opposed to the conclusions we
came to.
I understand that people will expect me to use this data to beat Larry
Sturdivan and Ken Rahn over the head, Well dear friends, that ain't going
to happen. When I sent Ken the ICP-AES data gathered over the course of
almost three years I asked him to please hang on to the data and wait
until Cliff's NAA data was available. Ken and Larry have respected that
wish and I appreciated their doing so. After many years of not
understanding one another Ken and I were able to at least exchange views
on this the way scientist are supposed to do. It was for me a wonderful
thing. I don't think I really changed Ken's view on the data, and likewise
I still view our results the way I did. But as bitter of enemies as we
were for years I no longer feel that way, I think Ken would agree. The
goal here was to get closer to the truth of the matter, and I think we
have done that.
So Barb since you started all of this I want to say thank you. That does
not really seem like enough somehow. You posed the important question to
Stu and me. As much as anyone this effort was a result of your insight and
desire to further the case, regardless of where it took us.
I've had the good fortune to work with some great people over the years
but nobody compares to Stuart Wexler. To work with Stu is like sticking
your head in a beehive. The buzzing never stops! He simply would not stop,
even when it seemed like that was the thing to do. Stu, I'll go to war
with you anytime, anyplace, anywhere.
John Hunt did the footwork to get for us all sorts of data from the
National Archives. He did it for free, never asked for anything in return.
John is simply outstanding. His insight into the FBI lab and their "way"
of doing things helped us so much in understanding the 1964 NAA data, it's
hard to imagine this having succeded without him. Thanks John!
Gary Aguilar, Art Snyder, Stewart Galanor, Larry Hancock and Josiah
Thompson always supported us and encouraged us every chance they could.
Thanks to all of them.
Erik Randich, Pat Grant, Bill Tobin all joined in even though they knew
full well the controversy involved. The metallurgy of this case needed to
be defined and they did that. Cliff Speilgelman and William James took up
the cause and invested enormous effort in getting the first new NAA data
on this subject in 30 years, so now we have wet chemical and NAA analysis
on the exact same samples for the first time in the history of this case.
Bottom line is this. You either believe in science or you don't. The irony
here is most of the people who worked with Stu and me on the analysis of
the bullet leads were not CTer's at all. Most believe Oswald acted alone.
The one thing they held in common was the desire to apply all of our best
efforts to cast light into and area of the case that needed to be better
understood. If you want to contend that this was a bunch of CTer's beating
up on NAA to further the death of the SBT then you do not understand what
has happen at all. That was never what drove us. What drove us was, and
is, the quest for the truth.
Regards to everybody out there on the net, this case is far from over.
There is still much to do, so stop wasting time and learn to work together
better, that's what we did.
Tom Pinkston
McKinney,Texas
John Fiorentino
relating to their first publication, now several years ago, I believe?
John F.
"Tom" <thomasp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1179437999.9...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Stug...@aol.com
John F. once again comes forth rewriting the history of TWA800
investigation, where KALLSTROM and not Tobin, wound up being reprimanded
for pursuing a preconceived notion against the advice of his lab experts,
of whom Tobin was only ONE.
John F. also left out the important fact that Tobin analyzed the bullet
melting process and the metallurgy of literally TONS of bullets AFTER his
stint in the FBI before he made claims about bullet material.
John F. also needs to apply a common standard to his LN brethren: Ken
Rahn and Larry Sturdivan have yet to chemically analyze a solitary piece
of ballistics material; why haven't you demanded the same of them?
-Stu
On May 16, 11:28 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> Just a note here:
>
> William Tobin never analyzed bullet lead during his tenure at the FBI.
>
> He was also fired from the TWA800 investigation by the FBI's James
> Kallstrom.
>
> Tobin has also been charged by the OIG with exercising "poor judgment" in
> the "La Familia" case. And was criticized on numerous occasions throughout
> that investigation by the OIG.
>
> John F.
>
> <Stugra...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179356907.2...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > The headline needs some adjustment for accuracy but the Washington
> > post has the following on its front page
>
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR200...
>
> > The journal article in question is in the Annals of Applied
> > Statistics.
> > I was lucky to find Cliff Spiegelman, a highly acclaimed statistician
> > who served on the NAS CABL panels, and interest him in looking into
> > the JFK stuff more thoroughly. Cliff, in turn, found several others
> > who lent their expertise to the analysis. The bottom line conclusion
> > here is one that I've been saying for several years now-- the
> > sampling frame used by Guinn (and Rahn and Sturdivan) for their
> > background study is inadequate; it isn't random, it is too small,
> > etc.
> > Hopefully Larry and Rahn can see past their predispositions to
> > acknowledge this fact.
>
> > Anyway, the raw study can be found here:
>
> >http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/subm...
>
> > -Stu
John Fiorentino
I am not re-writing ANY history, and you know it.
The ultimate vindication of Tobin's "conclusions" if that is in fact the
case is not the point.
And so for the record again, I have no firm conclusions re: TWA800. I am
still researching the subject. Please get your facts straight.
John F.
<Stug...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179452418....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Well, now you know. ;)
A lot of things can be solved within a reasonable degree of certainty by
utilizing ordinary common sense (coupled WITH other evidence, such as that
one physical bullet we have to work with here...known as CE399).
And, yes, you certainly could have avoided all that hard work re. the lead
analysis of WCC/MC bullets....because, given the SUM TOTAL of all the
evidence surrounding the wounding of John Kennedy and John Connally in
Dallas, the SBT is a rock-solid FACT. There's very, very little doubt
about that. Like it or not.
And another common-sense fact, given this same "sum total" of evidence
(sans any NAA analysis or any other type of bullet-lead research), is that
the five pieces of bullet evidence examined by Dr. Guinn in 1978 HAD to
have come from only two specific bullets fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's
rifle on 11/22/63. There is very little doubt about that fact either.
ANY other explanation that could be purported to try and reconcile this
"sum total" falls way, way short in all areas -- including "common sense"
(and, of course, in the area of the raw physical evidence as well --
namely, OTHER BULLETS THAT SHOULD BE IN EXISTENCE SOMEPLACE if the "LN"
scenario is untrue).
Nice work on the WCC/MC bullet lead research (I guess; I didn't read any
of it; I'm just trying to be pleasant). But it was a completely wasted
effort.
Sorry, but that's just (yet another) fact.
Anthony Marsh
Did you examine SMI or Norma bullets as controls?
Tom
Yes David I see your point.
For you science is something to be ignored when it shows an unpleasant
truth. I suppose you think global warming is a left wing conspiracy. More
is the pity.
If you'd spent your life analyzing chemicals and samples of all sorts (as
I have) you'd have a better understanding of the limitations of common
sense. What continues to floor me is nothing about this issue has anything
to do with everything you've written. The point is all the data indicates
you cannot use chemical data on bullets leads to further the case against
Oswald. That's it. We now understand the limitations of the data and we
are not forced to take the word of a single researcher (Dr. Guinn) as
gospel. You can continue to pursue Oswald all you want as the killer
(knock yourself out, many people have), you just can't use the NAA data as
a stick to beat people with.
Take a few years, gather and read the background material, then get back
to me.
pjsp...@aol.com
around the Earth. Someone tested it, and found it was not so. What tests
have you performed or observed that make the SBT a "rock-solid fact?"
Don't say Canning's trajectory analysis, that was a deliberate
misrepresentation, as demonstrated in the single-bullet theory chapter at
patspeer.com. Don't say "Beyond the Magic Bullet." Most everything in
that program demonstrated a reason to doubt the SBT. This is discussed in
the "Single Bullet "Fact" chapter at patspeer.com. And don't say "musta,
because no other bullets were found in the car," when the limo was cleaned
up at Partkland. As no report exists acknowledging this clean-up, you
can't even say we know no additional bullets or fragments were found
because the SS told us so. You can only assume as much. Is it really
logical to prop up a theory largely unsupported by other evidence on the
pure speculation that a bullet possibly entangled in someone's clothes
would absolutely have been left in the car in which that person was riding
and that the Secret Service would have told us about this fragment or
fragments should they have found it afterwards? Is that really logical?
Perhaps you can shoot a series of shots into clothed dummies in a moving
car and then have the dummies rapidly pulled out of the car before
inspecting the car. If all the bullets remain in the car, I'd be
surprised.
Tom
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Tony,
We did search out some control samples for the wet chemical analysis. At
that time (2002) Stu was able to get his hands on some Mannlicher-
Schoenauer (sp?) made by Western very similar the the WCC bullets in
question. I'd have to go back and dig up that data, as I recall they were
very different in compositon (almost pure lead I think). By the time we
got some actual WCC bullets the scope of the sampling was getting a little
crazy. Ended up doing as many as 11 subsamples from many of the bullets.
With the limited analytical time I had to gather data Stu and I decided to
focus on the WCC rounds first. I still have those Schoenauer rounds. Maybe
someday they will serve a good purpose as controls if more testing is
performed. The very old SMI rounds and the very young Norma rounds would
also make excellent controls, but the question of how comparable they'd be
would just create another debate. The Schoenauer rounds we have are from
the early 1960's and are probably a better choice. Maybe someday I can get
back to them, or I'll hand them over to the next person wanting to apply a
different technique in the future.
Tom
John Fiorentino
Could you please respond?
Anthony Marsh
Again, I have several SMI bullets and Norma bullets. I would be more
than willing to send them to you if you would test them.
Saying that a bullet lead is almost pure lead is little different from
some of the WCC bullets, which had antimony levels near zero. In fact
even pure lead may have some antimony.
David Von Pein
sheer likelihood) of the situation. And the likelihood is that all 5
Guinn-examined bullet pieces/bullets came from LHO's rifle.
For, if they DIDN'T all come from C2766....then those OTHER shooters
sure as heck got awful lucky when no large fragments big enough to be
linked to ANY specific gun surfaced after such a multi-gun ambush on
JFK.
Do you agree with that or not?
Common sense ALONE says the 5 samples were all from C2766, and from
the two bullets that struck President Kennedy. The odds that they
weren't are microscopically low. Probably too low to be measured on an
"odds" meter.
~Awaiting Tom's next breathless "BUT I HAVE DONE THE STUDY" retort.
I'm sure it'll be a dandy~
Kenneth A. Rahn
Just for the record, I was never your "bitter enemy." Disagreers, yes;
enemies, no.
Ken Rahn
Anthony Marsh
> No new bullet "study" is going to change the COMMON-SENSE FACTS (and
> sheer likelihood) of the situation. And the likelihood is that all 5
> Guinn-examined bullet pieces/bullets came from LHO's rifle.
>
So, like all good WC defenders, you reject science and fall back on your
suppositions. Funny, but I didn't hear you rejecting the NAA as bad
science when you guys were relying on it.
> For, if they DIDN'T all come from C2766....then those OTHER shooters
> sure as heck got awful lucky when no large fragments big enough to be
> linked to ANY specific gun surfaced after such a multi-gun ambush on
> JFK.
>
Maybe they used ammunition which would assure that it could not be
traced back to Oswald's rifle.
> Do you agree with that or not?
>
> Common sense ALONE says the 5 samples were all from C2766, and from
> the two bullets that struck President Kennedy. The odds that they
> weren't are microscopically low. Probably too low to be measured on an
> "odds" meter.
>
Common sense? Your common sense also tells you the the Earth is flat.
John Fiorentino
Cat got your tongue?
John F.
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:464e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Mike
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:A8qdnasldoaK2tLb...@comcast.com...
Someone once said that common sense is the least common sense. In fact, of
course, it does not exist at all.
Mike :-)
Peter Fokes
wrote:
"Common Sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of
18."
Albert Einstein
PF
David Von Pein
Yep. Believe in everything but the likely reality of the situation.
CTers love to complicate the shooting with unseen/unknown plotters &
assassins & scads of vanishing missiles, even though the crime
requires none of these things whatsoever in order to solve it.
Good use of common sense there, Tony.
>>> "Your common sense also tells you the the Earth is flat." <<<
No. Not really. But it's telling me something about TONY "Bugliosi's
Book Will Never Come Out (paraphrased)" MARSH. Unfortunately I can't
print out that "something" here. (The "moderated" forum, you know. I'd
get that dreaded e-mail from Dot-John. And who needs any more of those
things?)
John Fiorentino
Yes Mike "common sense" is certainly not the best way to describe it. It
should be "uncommon-sense" since so few have it.
John F.
"Mike" <mikere...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4650...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Fiorentino
Nobody's perfect..........not even Einstein.
John F.
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:lga053pef5tnf80kg...@4ax.com...
Peter Fokes
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Peter:
>
>Nobody's perfect..........not even Einstein.
>
>John F.
Ya, he failed math in school.
But perfection was not the issue.
Common sense was.
PF
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "Maybe they used ammunition which would assure that it could not be traced back to Oswald's rifle." <<<
>
>Yep. Believe in everything but the likely reality of the situation.
>
>CTers love to complicate the shooting with unseen/unknown plotters &
>assassins & scads of vanishing missiles, even though the crime
>requires none of these things whatsoever in order to solve it.
You sound like Bugliosi, he paints CTs with such an all encompassing
wide brush it's a wonder he can hoist the brush to paint his wide
stripe ... his brush must weigh more than his book, and that's sayin'
sumthin'!
Shame, shame .... but, then (and you can say shame on me for sort of
doing the same thing here, but it seems more and more true) that's
what we CTs are used to from LNs who, when they can't meet us on the
evidence with some sort of reasoned exchange, punt completely avoid
the evidence and attack this mythical pathetic CT being as if we are
all many limbs of that one befuddled brain. :-)
Barb :-)
>
>Good use of common sense there, Tony
>
>
John Fiorentino
It might be appropriate to put Einstein's comment in perspective. Many
things in some of the more narrow fields of science do not lend themselves
to the common sense approach, i.e., As you approach the speed of light
time slows down.
A common sense approach might dictate that the faster you go, the faster
time would go. That's the thrust of Einstein's comment. And he certainly
was a proponent of the deeper understanding of scientific principles
unclouded by prejudices.
But the issue here is Guinn and NAA, in the context of the JFK
assassination.
First NAA has not been "debunked" and Tobin/Randich never indicated that
it was. Anyone who reads that into the Tobin/Randich study is simply
mistaken. Their study related to statistical probabilities, most of which
were critical of the FBI's approach. However, their current application of
their theories to the JFK assassination is unsupported by the evidence in
toto, and is frankly not even a scientific statement.
In many ways, it reminds me of the "acoustical evidence" fiasco.
As far as Guinn goes, I haven't seen one person here accurately reflect
exactly what he said, either in his HSCA testimony, or in his opinions as
an expert witness in later years. Now, perhaps I've missed it, but as I
said, I haven't seen it.
John F.
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:q3k053dvalufblg5o...@4ax.com...
Mike
> Mike:
>
> Yes Mike "common sense" is certainly not the best way to describe it. It
> should be "uncommon-sense" since so few have it.
>
> John F.
>
I would say that what we call "common sense" is really a mixture of
experience and practicality. We can have no "common sense" about things of
which we have no experience or knowledge. "Common sense" tells us (or me
at least) that Quantum Mechanics is nonsense -- but it isn't.
Mike :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Touche'. Very good. You get a cookie. <g>
Barb :-)
>
>Mike :-)
David Von Pein
(May 17, 2007):
http://www.wusa9.com/video/player.aspx?aid=44729&bw=
Vince chimes in briefly on the new NAA-bashing bullet study......
"This {new bullet study} is the silliness that's been going on in this
case for close to 44 years. All this new study is saying is that
Neutron Activation Analysis is not conclusive on the issue of whether
all the fragments came from the same batch. But that's not new...it's
my book. It's just someone trying to get in the news again." --
Vincent Bugliosi
Mike
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cjo153paqaualil1b...@4ax.com...
Double chocolate chip?<g>
The other thing I meant to say about "common sense" is that it's a bit like
driving skill: nearly all of us think we have an above average amount of it.
Mike :-)
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Maybe they used ammunition which would assure that it could not be traced back to Oswald's rifle." <<<
>
> Yep. Believe in everything but the likely reality of the situation.
>
> CTers love to complicate the shooting with unseen/unknown plotters &
> assassins & scads of vanishing missiles, even though the crime
> requires none of these things whatsoever in order to solve it.
>
You seem to have a vanishing bullet in the missed shot. So why can't I
have a missed shot also?
> Good use of common sense there, Tony.
>
A double standard is not common sense.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Hey, something implied there about a certain trip back down Mt. St.
Helens?
Warch it, bud, or all the chocolate chips could disappear.<g>
Barb :-)
>
>Mike :-)
>
>
Mike
It didn't even BEGIN to cross my mind -- but now you mention it...<g>
> Warch it, bud, or all the chocolate chips could disappear.<g>
>
As if I'd risk life without chocolate, or CHIPS!
Mike :-)
> Barb :-)
>>
>>Mike :-)
>>
>>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
You look good with a grimace and white knuckles ... hahaha!<g>
>
>
>> Warch it, bud, or all the chocolate chips could disappear.<g>
>>
>
>As if I'd risk life without chocolate, or CHIPS!
Definitely can't see that happening!
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
He also said that the ONLY thing the new study pointed out was that we
could not say that the bullets came from the same box. Lie. And very silly.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179734565.2...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Wow, eloquent, well said ... and from the right place ... not from
ego, not from having to be right, not from leaping and fanciful
conclusions, not from having to put somebody else down, but from
thorough science and the appreciation you, as a scientist, have for
it.
As for me ... thank you. :-) My part came not from being astute enough
to pose the right question, but from being so dang stupiod when it
comes to this stuff ... and from you being wiliing to spend hours in
my kitchen trying to explain it to me.<g> Those were some fun times!
Congrats to all of you!
We need you, Tom ... don't be a stranger!
Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>