Re: Dr. Guinn And The NAA Tests
garag...@gmail.com
Guinn, Rahn, Sturdivan, and by citation, Vince Bugliosi.
Unfortunately, the peer-reviewed scientific literature has rendered
its verdict and NAA lies in a heap. The reasons are pretty obvious and
I wrote about them in an essay that appears in the May, 2007 blog of
www.reclaiminghistory.org and is published in full on the Mary Ferrell
site.
What follows appears on that site, but without the footnotes. Here is
a version with the footnotes.
Is Vincent Bugliosi Right that Neutron Activation Analysis Proves
Oswald's Guilt?
by Gary L. Aguilar
5/20/07
In his book, "Reclaiming History," author Vincent Bugliosi highlights
the dubious, if long-held, claim that bullet evidence in the Kennedy
case scientifically establishes Oswald's guilt to a high degree of
certainty. The proof, he says, consists of two related elements that
show that only two bullets from Oswald's rifle struck anyone in JFK's
motorcade on November 22nd.
First, both the nearly whole bullet that was recovered on a stretcher
at the hospital where JFK and Governor John Connally were treated, as
well as both of the other large bullet fragments recovered from JFK's
limousine (consisting of the copper jacket and the lead core of a
single bullet) were shown to have been fired from Oswald's Mannlicher
Carcano, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. Second, a
sophisticated analytical test, neutron activation analysis, proves
that all the smaller, recovered bullet fragments were separated from
the larger specimens. Thus, only two bullets struck, both from
Oswald's weapon.
As inescapable as the logic behind the theory may seem, and Bugliosi
does an admirable job of making it seem inescapable, two recent
reports in the technical/scientific literature have shot holes through
it. The second debunking was published six months after Bugliosi
claims to have stopped his inquiry and so he can't be faulted for not
addressing it. But Bugliosi was fully aware of the first article,
which, by itself, posed fatal problems which he glossed over. The
manner in which Bugliosi dealt with this important evidence tells us
much about his general approach to the subject of the Kennedy
assassination. And to understand that, some background is in order.
That the larger pieces came from bullets shot through Oswald's rifle
seems clear by the still-visible rifling marks. But in the wake of the
new studies what is now not clear is that NAA can prove that all the
small fragments are related to either one or the other of the two
identifiable, large fragments.
First elaborated before the House Select Committee on Assassination's
(HSCA) reinvestigation of Kennedy's murder in 1977, NAA is a
sophisticated technique that purports to identify bullets by measuring
the miniscule levels of "impurities" that are commonly present in
bullet lead. Typically the quantities of antimony (Sb), silver (Ag)
and copper (Cu) are assayed, but other trace components could be used
just as well. The HSCA called upon Vincent Guinn, the University of
California-Irvine, NAA expert. He put JFK's bullet evidence to the
test and, against all expectations, reported a match in antimony
levels that seemed to inextricably tie Oswald to the crime.
But as Guinn explained it, NAA only proved useful in the Kennedy case
because of a feature that was unique to the Mannlicher Carcano bullets
used in Oswald's rifle.
In stark contrast with the lead used in non-MCC bullets, which, bullet-
to-bullet, had near identical levels of measurable Sb, the lead in
Oswald's bullets had varying amounts. In the fragments recovered in
the JFK case, Guinn found the telltale sign of Oswald's ammo: varying
quanta of Sb.
But Guinn said that there was a key additional feature that helped him
reach his conclusions. With Oswald's ammo the levels of trace elements
found in fragments taken from a given bullet remained constant, but
were different from the levels found in other bullets. Thus, by NAA,
fragments from one bullet would be traceable to the bullet of origin
and could be distinguished from all others, even those picked out of a
single box of twenty cartridges.
Bugliosi offered a remarkably clear explanation of Guinn's thesis:
"When subjected to NAA by Dr. Guinn, all five of the specimens
produced a profile highly characteristic of the Western Cartridge
Company's Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition. Even more interesting, the
results fell into two distinct groups. Of the five samples, two had a
concentration of antimony of about 800 parts per million, and three
had a concentration of antimony of around 600 parts per million. This
could mean only one thing: all five specimens had come from just two
bullets. 'There is no evidence for three bullets, four bullets, or
anything more than two, but there is clear evidence there are two,'
Guinn told the HSCA.
"Guinn concluded that the large fragment found in the limousine, the
smaller fragments found on the rug of the limousine, and the fragments
recovered from Kennedy's brain were all from one bullet.
"His most important conclusion by far, however, scientifically
defeating the notion that the bullet found on [Governor John]
Connally's stretcher had been planted, was that the elemental
composition and concentration of trace elements of the three bullet
fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist matched those of a
second bullet, the stretcher bullet. The stretcher bullet, then, had
to be the one that struck Connally ... ."
In further support of Guinn's conclusions, Bugliosi cited two related
papers published by the longstanding Warren Commission supporters, Ken
Rahn, Ph.D. and Larry Sturdivan. The authors endorsed Guinn's
statistical analysis as well as Guinn's conclusion that, as Bugliosi
put it, "unlike other manufactured bullets, which he (Guinn) found to
have a homogeneous elemental composition even when they came from the
same batch or source, Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition manufactured by
the Western Cartridge Company (CE 399 and the bullet fragments in the
Kennedy case) (sic) had different elemental compositions (particularly
in antimony content) from bullet to bullet within the same box
(normally consisting of twenty rounds) (sic) of ammunition. (1 HSCA
494-495)."
But almost immediately, there were doubts about the statistical
analysis. Then, something unexpected happened. Two scientists from
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory who were avowedly agnostic on the
conspiracy question, Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Pat Grant, Ph.D.,
published a paper in the Journal of Forensic Science calling both
Guinn's original report and the two papers by Rahn and Sturdivan into
serious question.
One of Randich and Grant's objections was that, although Guinn worked
in good faith, he didn't understand elemental bullet metallurgy, which
was Randich's area of expertise. (Nor, they made clear, did Rahn or
Sturdivan.) Guinn was wrong that Mannlicher Carcano bullets were
unique because the trace levels of component Sb varied. The levels of
antimony in MCC bullets do vary, they said. But so do Sb levels in
many bullets that, like MCC shells, are jacketed. It is the non-
jacketed bullets that have consistent levels of trace components. And
the levels are controlled for a very good reason.
For while with jacketed bullets it is the jacket that provides the
hardness and not the lead inside the jacket, in non-jacketed bullets
the hardness of a bullet is determined by how much antimony is mixed
into the lead. To strictly control bullet hardness, an important
quality control issue, manufacturers strictly control the quanta of
antimony used in the lead of non-jacketed ammo. But with jacketed
bullets, Sb levels vary because no effort is expended to control
antimony as it has no bearing on the bullet's hardness.
As it happens, the non-MCC bullets Guinn used in his comparison tests
were non-jacketed, and so, bullet to bullet, had homogenous Sb levels.
Imagining that his test samples were typical of the universe of all
non-MCC shells, Guinn drew the wrong conclusions. The varying Sb
levels he found in JFK's fragments did not prove they had come from
MCC shells; they could have come from many kinds of jacketed rounds.
Randich and Grant also disproved another, key Guinn contention: that
there is little variation in Sb levels within a single bullet. Using
exquisite micrographs showing MCC bullets cut in cross section,
Randich and Grant demonstrated that MCC bullet lead exhibits a
"cystalline" type structure, with Sb tending to "microsegregate"
around crystals of lead. The crystals are large enough that a sample
taken from one portion of a bullet might easily have an Sb level one
or two orders of magnitude higher or lower than one taken from another
portion of the same bullet. Guinn found Sb matches within the MCC
bullets he tested because he measured bits taken from only a very
small portion of his test bullets, which said nothing about what he
would have found had he sampled an entirely different area of the
bullet. Thus, fragments with similar antimony levels could have come
from one bullet, or more than one, and those with different antimony
levels could have come from but a single bullet.
Finally, Randich and Grant analyzed the statistical model Guinn
presented to the HSCA. They determined that the number of samples he
had evaluated and the number of tests he performed were inadequate to
draw the sweeping statistical conclusions Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan
had drawn.
In May 2007, a second paper appeared reporting on a chemical, forensic
and statistical analysis of bullets derived from the same batch as
those supposedly used by Oswald. The authors, Cliff Spiegelman,
professor of statistics at Texas A&M and an expert in bullet lead
analysis, William A. Tobin, the FBI's former Chief Forensic
Metallurgist, William D. James, research chemist with the Texas A&M
Center for Chemical Characterization and Analysis, and Stuart Wexler,
brought considerable expertise to their study. As with Randich and
Grant, they also concluded that, "evidence used to rule out a second
assassin is fundamentally flawed." They reported that, "many bullets
within a box of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets have similar composition."
Thus, it was not true, as Guinn had said, that such matches are
extraordinarily rare.
To his credit, Bugliosi acknowledged the Randich and Grant paper in
his book. Unfortunately, however, he dismissed their conclusions on
the flimsy basis of a personal letter (which he reproduced in an
endnote) by the 40+ year Warren Commission supporter, Larry Sturdivan.
Repeating Guinn's mistaken interpretation, Sturdivan answered Randich
and Grant by saying, "If one looks at the NAA data obtained by Vincent
Guinn for the HSCA, it falls into two groups that are immediately
obvious ...." Randich and Grant had effectively demonstrated that,
metallurgically and statistically, it is simply not the case that
there are only two groups, a conclusion that has since been confirmed
by the work of Spiegelman et al.
Thus, the NAA pillar Bugliosi touts as undergirding Oswald's guilt no
longer stands. This is an embarrassing development that Bugliosi could
easily have avoided. In dealing with so important an area of evidence,
Bugliosi had a duty to leave no stone unturned. Instead, for reasons
that seem obvious, he deferred to the opinion of the pro-Warren
Commission partisan, Larry Sturdivan. Had he approached this subject
the way a scholar of any merit would have, he would have checked
Sturdivan's assertions with either Randich or Grant, two men who have
better credentials than Sturdivan does but lack the latter's biases on
the conspiracy question. But he never did. I called Randich and Grant
and both said Bugliosi had never contacted them.
Endnotes:
Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History. New York: WW Norton&Co., 2007,
p.814.
Rahn, KA, Sturdivan, LM. Neutron activation and the JFK assassinaton
- Part I. Data and interpretation. Journal of Radioanalytical and
Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 205.213.
Rahn, KA, Sturdivan. LM. Neutron activation and the JFK
assassinationPart II. Extended benefits. Journal of Radioanalytical
and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 215-222.
Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History. New York: WW Norton & Co.,
2007, endnote, p. 436.
Erik Randich,1 Ph.D. and Patrick M. Grant,2 Ph.D. 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
John Solomon. Study Questions FBI Bullet Analysis in JFK
Assassination. Washington Post, 5/16/07. P. A03. On-line at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html
See: UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE
ON ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS. PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF SSA
WILLIAM A. TOBIN FORMER CHIEF FORENSIC METALLURGIST, FBI CRIME
LABORATORY, May 10, 1999. On-line at: http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/51099wat.htm
See: Texas A&M Statistician Probes Bullet Evidence in JFK
Assassination - Team Calls for Reanalysis of "Fundamentally Flawed"
Evidence Ruling Out a Second Shooter." On-line at:
http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/550/
IBID.
Texas A&M Statistician Probes Bullet Evidence in JFK Assassination -
Team Calls for Reanalysis of "Fundamentally Flawed" Evidence Ruling
Out a Second Shooter. On-line at: http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/550/
Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History. New York: WW Norton & Co.,
2007, endnote, p. 437.
David Von Pein
Bullshit.
Simple question (not a scientific one, no, but a good, solid, common-
sense inquiry).......
What do you think the odds would be of ONLY bullets and identifiable
fragments from Lee Oswald's C2766 gun being recovered after a
particular shooting event IF there had actually been two or three (or
more) guns involved in said crime (with bullets from at least one of
those other non-Oswald guns striking a victim)?
Anybody want to guess at the odds of this occurring?
NAA isn't even really needed here at all. Ordinary common sense tells
a reasonable person examining the OSWALD-ONLY fragments and bullet
(CE399) connected with JFK's murder that just one gun's bullets struck
any limo victim on Nov. 22....and it wasn't James Files' Fireball.
cdddraftsman
Maybe Gary should of used a different name when he posted his
article . His reputation for misleading statements , taking words out
of context and ascribing a context to events that were not present
when the event occured is legendary and would not of cast his article
in good light to those who would of prefered a less biased opinion on
the subject . To say the least ........................tl
cdddraftsman
to salvage the wreckage of Gary Aguilars work on the JFK
Assassination . After his disasterous performance on such hype driven
comedy shows such as TMWKK perhaps he's the last person on earth who
should comment on other peoples supposed short commings .......eh
gary ? ..................tl
justm...@gmail.com
Gary you try so hard to be convincing, unfortunately your posts are
long winded and not very interesting.
How about trying a different approach instead of constantly using the
"I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.
Someone might read past the first paragraph if you're lucky.
My vote goes to Ken Rahn.
For DVP (Healy Moment) ROFLMAO at James Files. Is Dankbaar still
pushing that fairy tale?
David Von Pein
AFAIK, yes, he sure is.
He's certainly not going to abandon the Jimmy Files crap after he's
put out a 600+-page book on Mr. Files, plus also a barf-inducing DVD
called "I SHOT JFK: THE REAL MURDERER REVEALS HIS SECRET" --
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/dvd.htm.
Wim's got too much invested in Mr. Files to scrap him now.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/59e025a70efa9ef5
David Von Pein
The following paragraph is a very astute and insightful quotation
from another author that I came across recently via the Internet. It's
a quote that goes to the very heart of the "James Files" matter, and
is certainly something that conspiracy theorists ought to consider
before swallowing (wholesale) the idea that a Mr. James E. Files fired
the fatal shot into President John Kennedy's head on November 22nd,
1963........
>> "JFK conspiracy believers don't care that the technical elements of their arguments are derisively rejected by almost all pathologists, criminalists, forensic scientists, ballistics experts, and historians who examine them." <<
In other words, except for perhaps Dr. Cyril Wecht, a conspiracy
theorist would be hard-pressed in finding a single pathologist
(including all three of the main autopsy doctors who examined
Kennedy's body on the night of 11/22/63 and concluded, to a man, that
JFK was struck in the head by only one shot from behind him), or a
single scientist, or any reputable researcher or historian who
believes that James Files (or anybody else for that matter) fired a
bullet into JFK's brain from the Grassy Knoll in Dallas, Texas.
In my opinion, that obviously-large list of Files non-believers is a
pretty big hurdle to overcome, even for the boldest of conspiracy
promoters. Even a goodly number of CTers regard the Files story as
pure hogwash. And yet Wim's ridiculous book was published anyway. (And
604 pages of Files-related tripe, to boot.)
Man, that takes someone with some giant-sized gonads -- to place on
the market something like the book "FILES ON JFK"....I've got to give
the author that much praise at least. He's got guts. He's got no PROOF
of any conspiracy, of course; but he does own some industrial-sized
family jewels.
In a recent Internet/Forum conversation with author Wim Dankbaar, I
was greeted with the following lovely, open-minded dialogue from Mr.
Dankbaar (which should give everybody an idea as to the strict
conspiracy-only agenda that Wim adheres to on a routine, daily basis):
"Hey Von Pein, another lying lone-nutter! Found an audience to deceive
here?" .... "I am never nice to lone-nutters, since I consider them
treacherous liars. Get used to it." -- Wim Dankbaar; January 2, 2006
A similarly-silly type of "All LNers Are Liars And/Or Crackpots"
comment was made by Wim after I asked him directly the following
question re. Mr. Vince Bugliosi:
"Can you tell me, Wim, what is your opinion of Vincent Bugliosi and
his pro-LN position (which equates, in essence, to an 'anti-Vary-
Baker' position)?"
Mr. Dankbaar responded with this infantile, knee-jerk, all-inclusive,
anti-LN remark:
"As you know, my opinion is that everyone who advocates a LN position
is either ignorant, talking out of his ass, or part of the cover-up."
-- Wim Dankbaar; July 23, 2005
And here's another brilliant comment (Not!) by Mr. Dankbaar (via his
own "JFKMurderSolved" Internet Forum):
"I have not substantiated two teams {of JFK assassins}. I believe
there was more than one team; probably three. ... But there were at
least 6 shooters." -- Wim Dankbaar; January 5, 2006
"At least 6 shooters". That deserves yet another replay -- "At least 6
shooters".
And yet (somehow) -- Where does EVERY SCRAP of ballistics evidence in
the "Real" JFK case lead? Right straight into the Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle owned by Lee H. Oswald -- that's where.
And, regardless of the evidence that plainly says otherwise, Wim
believes there were "at least 6 shooters" in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63
(one of which was the stealth-like Mr. Files, of course). What kind of
losers and blind-as-a-bat professional assassins made up this team of
"at least 6 shooters"? And, a better question still -- WHY in the
world would a "pro hit" like the JFK assassination possibly even
REQUIRE the use of so much extra firepower to eliminate just one
nearly-stationary target? Did they WANT to complicate their "plot"
needlessly and recklessly with so many shooters there would be
virtually no hope of having all these bullets and bullet holes in the
victim(s) funnel down to just their one "Patsy" (Oswald) in the
Depository? A "Six-Shooter Patsy Plan" is completely idiotic, and even
a lifetime CTer should be able to figure out why.
Therefore, via that theory of "at least six shooters", either EVERY
shooter other than a gunman using Oswald's #C2766 rifle totally missed
everything and everybody in Dealey Plaza. Or: A humongous amount of
trace evidence leading back to the OTHER FIVE-PLUS shooters' weapons
was all magically eradicated before a single Parkland Hospital witness
could gaze upon even ONE of these many non-Oswald bullets and/or
fragments.
Is the above a likely or reasonable scenario? -- Only on Wim's planet
of "Conspiracy" is it likely. But in the real world of sunrises in the
east and snow in Minneapolis in the wintertime? -- No. It's not
likely. Nor is it even remotely possible (not even on the luckiest of
days for these "six shooters" could that large-scale "Patsy" plan be
successfully achieved).
Here's another of Mr. Dankbaar's despicable and blatantly-false
theories (this one regarding the supposed non-Oswald killer of Dallas
police officer J.D. Tippit). .....
This is supposedly a photo of Tippit's "real killer":
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/tip.jpg
..... But a big problem anybody has in claiming this man in that
photograph was the "real killer" of J.D. Tippit (besides the
practically-endless wealth of evidence supporting the proof-positive
fact that Officer Tippit's murderer was Lee Harvey Oswald, to the
exclusion of every human being on the planet) is the physical HEIGHT
of this so-called "real Tippit killer".
I directly confronted Mr. Dankbaar with this height issue in 2005,
with Wim predictably skirting around the issue without providing any
reasonable kind of an explanation for it. That is to say, this so-
called "Real Killer" of Tippit is no doubt MUCH TALLER than Lee Harvey
Oswald, because James Files (standing next to this guy in the photo
above) is 5-feet-11.*
* = That 5'11" statistic can easily be confirmed by checking out James
Files' official "State Of Illinois Department Of Corrections" prison-
related documentation (link provided below). Files has been in prison
for years, serving time for attempting to murder a policeman. ......
www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/search/inms_print.asp?idoc=N14006
So, since Files himself is 5-11, it means that this so-called "Tippit
Killer" is about 6-feet-4 (or perhaps even taller than that),
according to that picture of him.
Therefore, per this nutsville alternate-killer theory, not only did
all the Tippit murder witnesses identify the wrong person as J.D.
Tippit's murderer (via facial features, et al; and this other guy does
not look at all like Oswald, IMO) -- but the witnesses also (somehow)
positively IDed a man who was only 5'9" tall (Oswald) as the true
killer, when the "real killer", per Dankbaar and Files, was more than
HALF-A-FOOT taller than Oswald! A likely mass "mis-identification" (by
MANY different witnesses)? Hardly.
Plus: The conspirators have now DOUBLED the complexity of their "Frame
The Patsy" plot by making Oswald the unwitting Patsy in yet another
November 22nd murder (Tippit's). They now have to "frame" him for TWO
murders, instead of just one. And, what's more incredible than that --
these framers/plotters evidently convinced more than a dozen witnesses
(when combining the two killings) to FALSELY IMPLICATE OSWALD in both
the JFK and Tippit murders.
Conspiracy theorists would be much better off postulating that Howard
Brennan and each of the many Tippit witnesses were all "planted
witnesses", paid by the plotters/henchmen to point a finger at only
Oswald. Because to believe that ALL of these ordinary people (i.e.,
"non-plotters") lied about Lee Oswald being the person who killed both
Kennedy and Tippit is just plain lunacy and defies every aspect of
logical thinking. Not to mention how such conspiracy theories just
toss all the physical evidence against Oswald right into the nearest
trash bin, and for no real good reason whatsoever, other than one of
sheer "CT convenience".
In fact, the whole "Oswald Is Innocent Of Killing Tippit" hooey really
gets under my skin big-time. Because even if CTers want to make up an
excuse from whole cloth for Oswald not killing JFK, they still haven't
a single leg (or toe) to stand on re. Oswald's undeniable guilt in the
J.D. Tippit murder. None whatsoever.
And Wim's bold declaration of actually showing a PICTURE of the "Real
Tippit Killer" on his website is doubly insulting to the intelligence
of anyone who has even looked in a cursory fashion into the evidence
re. the Tippit murder.
Wim must have a poster of Lee Oswald hanging in his bedroom marked
with the words "I Love This Guy And Want To Help Him Get Away With
Murder". Why on Earth so many people seem to own that same poster of
Mr. Oswald, and regard this double-murderer so highly, is something
that is beyond my way of thinking. Way beyond it. Because conspiracy
theorists giving Oswald a SECOND free murder on November 22, 1963, is
utterly reprehensible! It stinks to high heaven. Always has; and
always will.
The conspiracy theorists have only the following items to bolster the
notion that someone other than Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit......
>> Twisted logic.
>> So-called "planted" evidence.
>> Tons of corrupt cops, who (for some stupid reason) WANT the real Tippit killer to go free.
>> Gobs of witnesses who either deliberately lied under oath (for absolutely no reason at all) or ALL of these witnesses somehow innocently misidentified the "real killer" as none other than Lee Harvey Oswald.
>> And Oswald-damning circumstantial evidence which -- in the hands of a CTer -- amazingly becomes EXCULPATORY evidence!
Boy, that's some fantastic pro-conspiracy case, huh? I'd sure love to
take that case into court some day. ~smirk~
And one very big reason (among others) to place Mr. Files' JFK
assassination story in the "unreliable" category is due to Files'
supposed "association" with someone who is purported to be the "real"
killer of Officer Tippit. Because as anyone with a brain can tell,
nobody murdered J.D. Tippit except the man who was charged with that
crime in 1963 (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald).
Two additional huge reasons to know that Files is full of hot air are:
his claim of having seen Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza during the shooting
of JFK .... and his silly boast about leaving a bullet shell with his
teeth marks on it on the Knoll fence as a "calling card".
The "I Saw Ruby" claim is easily debunked through various witnesses
who saw Ruby at a Dallas newspaper office at the precise time
President Kennedy was being assassinated. And the "calling card"
business is just too loopy and idiotic to even consider. Any
professional hit man who just shot the President in the temple and
then leaves behind his "calling card" in the form of a shell casing
with his potentially-identifiable teeth imprints on the thing must be
one of two things -- a suicidal nutcase or .... a liar.
Believe in the Jimmy Files nonsense if that's your bag. But I'll
choose, instead, to remain on the side of supportable "evidence" in
the case (and on the much-preferred side of "sanity" as well). And the
overwhelming majority of hard, supportable evidence in the JFK murder
case points the finger of guilt in just a single, solitary direction
-- toward a person named Lee Harvey Oswald."
David Von Pein
January 2006
==========================================
==========================================
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/files.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8086624b2f1bf7b3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7448f602cc9b26e3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/606503e4d63e74ad
Kenneth A. Rahn
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189073051.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 6, 4:47 am, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'd be much more interested to see who's going to do the job of trying
>> to salvage the wreckage of Gary Aguilars work on the JFK
>> Assassination . After his disasterous performance on such hype driven
>> comedy shows such as TMWKK perhaps he's the last person on earth who
>> should comment on other peoples supposed short commings .......eh
>> gary ? ............
>
> Gary you try so hard to be convincing, unfortunately your posts are
> long winded and not very interesting.
> How about trying a different approach instead of constantly using the
> "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.
> Someone might read past the first paragraph if you're lucky.
> My vote goes to Ken Rahn.
Thanks, Justme. And while I am here, I would suggest to lurkers to just
ignore all the revisionist talk by Gary and his friends. It is just talk, as
I have shown repeatedly. Skip over the NAA threads and go on to something
else. Don't waste any of your valuable time with this stuff.
Ken Rahn
Gary A
I suppose that among Warrenistas it's a mark of distinction and
considered a matter of pride and accomplishment to make a charge and
offer no evidence in support of it. Sort of reminds me of J. Edgar
Hoover, who, as chief architect of the Warren Commission's silly
conclusions, must be his idol.
But what is most amusing to me is that he doesn't even attempt to
salvage NAA, or Guinn/Rahn/Sturdivan or Bugliosi's version of NAA. Nor
could he. And since he can't actually respond to the facts in my
essay, he does the only thing he is capable of doing - making
personal, unsubstantiated comments.
Gary
Gary A
wrote:
> On Sep 6, 4:47 am, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd be much more interested to see who's going to do the job of trying
> > to salvage the wreckage of Gary Aguilars work on the JFK
> > Assassination . After his disasterous performance on such hype driven
> > comedy shows such as TMWKK perhaps he's the last person on earth who
> > should comment on other peoples supposed short commings .......eh
> > gary ? ............
>
> Gary you try so hard to be convincing, unfortunately your posts are
> long winded and not very interesting.
> How about trying a different approach instead of constantly using the
> "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.
> Someone might read past the first paragraph if you're lucky.
> My vote goes to Ken Rahn.
It can't be helped if you are unable to read beyond a paragraph or
two. And since apparently you can't, then Rahn's your man, for he
invariably dodges all questions about how he knows that Mannlicher
Carcano ammunition is different from other types of jacketed
ammunition that might have been used in Dealey Plaza. The fact,
according to real metallurgy experts, is that Oswald's supposed
ammunition is in no way unique, but it's much like the lead used in
other types of jacketed ammo.
That apparently displeases you, so you've thrown in your lot with
someone who has been thumped by scientists with real expertise in
metallurgy and statistical analysis.
If a Warren skeptic chose the side that was against science,
Warrenistas would roll their eyes derisively. Now, old chum, the shoe
is on the other foot!
Gary
That
Gary A
> Justme,
>
> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Oh, hi, Ken.
I'm very sure why you don't want people checking out NAA anymore: it's
been debunked by Randich and Grant of Lawrence Livermore Lab and by
Spiegelman, former FBI lab expert W. Tobin, and a group out of Texas
A&M.
One of the bases of your conclusions, and those of Guinn as well, is
that the bullets Oswald is supposed to have used are somehow unique,
or virtually unique, in that, from bullet to bullet they have varying
amounts of trace elements, most notably, antimony. Virtually all other
bullets, you've said, have near identical antimony levels, bullet to
bullet.
But as Randich and Grant have show,n that's complete codswollop.
I've repeatedly challenged you to produce the name of any credentialed
expert who agrees with you on this and you just won't do it. You won't
do it, I'd guess, for a very good reason: you can't do it! No true
experts agree with you because you're wrong.. When a real scientist
makes a mistake, he owns up to it. I'm not saying your error was in
bad faith, but your continual stonewalling invites suspicion you're
now dealing in less than good faith.
Moreover, if you really had any valid response to Randich and Grant,
who published more than a year ago, why you'd have written a letter to
their peer-review journal, the Journal of Forensic Science. That's the
way real science is done and you know it.
Instead, as Pat Grant has derisively noted, you've settled instead
with putting some silly nonsense up at your own website that's not
passed any kind of scientific scrutiny. I suppose that's the only
venue that will have you now, and so that's where you go and that's
where you stay. In consequence, your band of fellow travelers on NAA
has dwindled so much it's become nearly an extinct specie..
Just so lurkers can see you in full stonewall mode yet again, let me
ask one more time: Exactly who is/are the metallurgist(s) who say
Western Cartridge Company, Mannlicher Carcano bullet lead is
distinctly different from all other types of jacketed bullet lead?
You can't say, can you? And so the only people who now believe it are
you and Larry Sturdivan and Vince Bugliosi, and perhaps Jean Davison
(all non-metallurgists, of course), and a few people around here who
hate science when it dashes the precious, faith-based myths you keep
urging them to believe.
Your continual stonewalling tells us all we really need to know about
the credibility of your work, Ken.
Gary
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gary, read this s-l-o-w-l-y. I don't read your posts because they
don't interest me. Their good reading material if I'm in the mood for
a nap and unable to fall asleep. Two paragraphs written by you and I'm
out like a light. Can you say boringggggggggggggg?????????
aeffects
sitdown you complete moron..... you're messing up the show....
aeffects
>
> > I'd be much more interested to see who's going to do the job of trying
> > to salvage the wreckage of Gary Aguilars work on the JFK
> > Assassination . After his disasterous performance on such hype driven
> > comedy shows such as TMWKK perhaps he's the last person on earth who
> > should comment on other peoples supposed short commings .......eh
> > gary ? ............
>
> Gary you try so hard to be convincing, unfortunately your posts are
> long winded and not very interesting.
this from a fool who doesn't even know RFK was JFK's brother......
what a waste of bandwidth you are.....
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
When we're ready to bring in the clowns Healy we'll let you know.
aeffects
Rahn has fouled this board the past few weeks, these dolts are his
jockstrap supporters, including DVP...
aeffects
wrote:
spoken like a true dunce, looking for attention......
Gary A
Is there someone we don't know about forcing you to read them?
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
this from a fool who doesn't even know RFK was JFK's brother......
what a waste of bandwidth you are.....
This from an even bigger fool who thought JFK's name was John Francis
Kennedy....Healy I suggest you think about your blunders before
attacking others. Moron!
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healey? Nobody your age should know as little as you do. Your sexist
comments to Justme are JUST that. I understand you get along better
with the likes of Holmes because you enjoy being ordered around. Now,
I suggest you simply shut up; remain as intellectually dull as you
typically are and get dinner ready. Holmes will be home shortly. Oh,
and don't forget to put on your lipstick. You know how Holmes enjoys
a big kiss and hug.
Gary? You're an intellectual bore...but I believe you know this. You
hide, as you have for years behind a facade of intellectualism and
yet, you remain as ignorant as ever. You're unable to prove ANYTHING
you say and yet you beat the same drum day after day; year after
year. It doesn't create respect Gary and you of all people crave
this. It's so obvious in your writings. I am not attempting to be
mean spirited here Gary, nor am I attempting to avoid what you
consider to be YOUR evidence. However, to debate you would be, for
me, BORING. Each and everything you write about has been written
before.....for 40 plus years. I simply do not understand what your
motivation is. You're hardly stupid Gary and that's what surprises
me. This is why I believe you're intellectually boring. Nobody,
including you and your sceptics has overturned what Guinn/Rahn/
Sturdivan has published...and you know this. It's he said; she said.
Who gives a shit at this point? You contribute noting to the CT cause
because the CT cause after 44 years is GONE. So, I ask one more
time. What exactly do you hope to accomplish by preaching the same
crap over and over again?
Kenneth A. Rahn
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189120204....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I have thought a lot about Gary's pattern of behavior. It seems to me that
he is looking for victory by intimidation, in the old agitprop tradition.
The sad thing is that he equates that with determining the truth, in the
sense that by vanquishing someone he establishes the falsity of their
position. That is part of the reason that I don't bother with him anymore.
Ken Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
consider it probable that he resorts to bullying because he cannot or will
not genuinely engage others intellectually. This idea is consistent with his
endlessly touting the professional credentials of those he agrees with, and
demeaning the credentials of those he disagrees with. Hiding behind
credentials is another way of avoiding direct intellectual engagement. It's
all very sad.
Ken Rahn
garag...@gmail.com
> On Sep 5, 8:07 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > An evaluation of the bullet-fragment evidence (the NAA tests done by
> > Dr. Guinn and subsequent NAA studies)......
>
> > There are 5 total bullet specimens in question here:
>
> > 1.) CE399 (the stretcher bullet, positively from Oswald's rifle).
>
> > 2.) CE567 (one of the two front-seat limo fragments; positively from
> > Oswald's rifle).
>
> > 3.) One of the fragments taken from John Connally's wrist.
>
> > 4.) A fragment taken from JFK's head.
>
> > 5.) A fragment found underneath Nellie Connally's jump seat in the
> > limousine.
>
> > Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, in 1978, came to the conclusion, via his NAA
> > studies, that the above 5 bullet specimens very likely came from just
> > two individual bullets, with both of those bullets "most likely" being
> > WCC/Mannlicher-Carcano bullets.
>
> > And given the fact (which is ironclad and indisputable) that among
> > these 5 bullet specimens examined by Guinn there are positively TWO
> > distinguishable bullets that definitely came out of Lee Oswald's rifle
> > (CE139)....it's, therefore, rather easy to do the math from that point
> > on.
>
> > Since CE567 obviously cannot be a part of CE399, this means that if
> > (as Guinn's evaluation indicates) there were two and only two bullets
> > in the mix that account for these five bullet specimens, then both of
> > those bullets were positively bullets that came out of Oswald's
> > Carcano rifle.
>
> > Guinn's breakdown of the two "batches" for the two WCC/MC bullets also
> > perfectly fits the LHO/LN scenario......
>
> > Via Guinn's data, one group from the 5 specimens contains ONLY the
> > Connally wrist fragment and CE399.
>
> > While the other "grouping" of 3 bullet fragments contains three items
> > that all are very likely to have been a part of the JFK head-shot
> > bullet -- e.g., CE567 from the front seat, the fragment from Kennedy's
> > head, and the small fragment found under Nellie's jump seat.
>
> > It adds up absolutely perfectly -- right down to the above-mentioned
> > "grouping" together of the fragments to form what amounts to TWO and
> > only TWO bullets from the rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> > Some of Dr. Guinn's testimony......
>
> > DR. GUINN -- "Once again, every one of these samples {CE399, CE567,
> > CE840, CE842, & CE843} is in the same range, which is an unusual
> > range, as the background WCC Mannlicher-Carcano samples that we have
> > looked at from all four production lots. These five fall right in the
> > midrange, in fact. They are not the highest; they are not the lowest
> > of the antimony range, and the same is true of the silver."
>
> > MR. WOLF -- "It is your opinion then that these all are fragments from
> > WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullets?"
>
> > DR. GUINN -- "I think that is their most likely origin, yes."
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscaguin.htm
>
> > =================
>
> > The more-recent NAA tests suggest that Guinn's analysis might not be
> > as definitive or exacting as originally thought. I certainly cannot
> > deny that fact.
>
> > But that's ALL that the newer NAA tests suggest. Those newer tests
> > certainly do not completely destroy the "Lone Assassin" scenario in
> > any way OTHER THAN TO AN UNKNOWN DEGREE OF PROBABILITY WHEN IT COMES
> > TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE NAA ANALYSIS.
>
> > And I still want to know the answer to this logical question......
>
> > What do you suppose the odds are that Dr. Vincent Guinn could have
> > come to his rather detailed opinion of 2 bullets and only 2 bullets
> > being involved via his NAA study (with both bullets verifiably coming
> > from LHO's gun, and the grouping of the fragments also perfectly
> > aligning themselves into an LN-favoring position) and yet still have
> > THREE or more bullets actually being the true sources of those five
> > bullet specimens examined by Dr. Guinn in the late 1970s?
>
> > In other words...how on this Earth did the multiple shooters (shooting
> > at President Kennedy with multiple rifles) manage to get THAT LUCKY if
> > bullet specimens that really came from multiple weapons were examined
> > by Dr. Guinn and yet still (via 1970s technology) have all five
> > specimens miraculously determined to have come (per Guinn) from just
> > TWO Western Cartridge/Mannlicher-Carcano bullets from Lee Oswald's
> > rifle?
>
> > Just based on ordinary common sense, aren't we talking "O.J. DNA" type
> > numbers here (i.e., odds that are overwhelmingly in favor of such a
> > multi-gun scenario having NOT occurred in Dealey Plaza at all on
> > November 22, 1963)?
>
> > In my opinion, yes....we are talking those kind of crazy kind of odds
> > here.
>
> > In addition, let me add this "odds" observation......
>
> > What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took
> > place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from more than just a single rifle
> > striking the victims in President Kennedy's car....and yet, after the
> > bullets stopped flying and the fragments and/or whole bullets were
> > examined, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-Oswald gun
> > turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively
> > eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle as the source for ALL of the
> > bullets and fragments that hit any of the victims on Elm Street?
>
> > Short of conspiracy theorists coming right out and calling Vincent
> > Guinn a bald-faced liar when he revealed his NAA results in 1978 (and
> > even taking into account the newer NAA studies that have been done
> > since '78 that have cast doubt on the exactitude of Guinn's
> > determinations), I cannot see how the conspiracists of the world can
> > fight the above-mentioned "odds" problem.
>
> > ~~~~~~~~
>
> > RELATED LINKS:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d0bc5be11042a291
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bf79593cce78406
>
> The answer to your question is that they couldn't of gotten that lucky
> and the hair splitters convention members are worried to death . They
> have no solid physical evidence so they've gone on a witch hunt of
> microscopic hair splitting proportions . ( Which hunt ? I don't know )
> thats what they've done and I don't buy it . All the fragments came
> from LHO's 2 bullets and thats Official ! ...............tl
Yes, I know.
And it was once official, according to the FBI, that Nixon was
innocent of Watergate after, what Attorney General Kleindeinst, with
unintended irony, called, 'the most exhaustive investigation since the
Kennedy assassination.
And it was one official that we had been attacked without provocation
in the Gulf of Tonkin on 8/4/64. Well, we weren't attacked on 8/4/64
and we'd been very energetically trying to provoke North Vietnam into
a war with our Op-Plan 34A raids and our DeSoto patrols.
And it was once official that the FBI and CIA had cooperated fully
with the Warren Commission.
And even Robert Blakey, the chief counsel of the HSCA, once said,
officially, that he'd gotten very good cooperation from the CIA.
Well, suffice it to say, none of these examples, official or no, were
factual.
And today NAA has been debunked by two, well credentialed U.S.
Government scientists, Lawrence Livermore Labs' Erik Randich, Ph.D.
and Pat Grant, Ph.D.
Can Guinn's debunking get any more official than that? I don't think
so.
You hate these government scientists, don't you?
Gary
justm...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gary please, give it up and move on to something that hasn't been
raked thru the coals for 40 yrs.
You're going to beat this dead horse until you win, well guess what?
It's a no win situation.
Actually there isn't anything new that hasn't been raked for 40 yrs,
in that case..just give up!
I agree 100% with what YoHarvey said. And I already told you, you're
boring.
I realize you want to make a name for yourself, that's apparent in
your posts. You remind me of Wim Dankbaar...he'll do anything he can
to have the lime light. Problem is, the wares hes trying to sell are
worthless to everyone but him. Get the picture??
Gary A
Sashay, Ken, stonewalling, as usual.
Speaking of an unwillingness to engage intellectually with others,
lets not ignore that you're dodging the key question, yet again,
aren't you?
Which?
Guinn and you say that it is clear that Western Cartridge Co.
Mannlicher Carcano bullets were used in the JFK assassination because
NAA shows that there were varying levels of trace elements
(particularly antimony) in the bullets evidence (bullets and
fragments) which is a feature all but unique to Western Cartridge MC
bullets.
Well, according to two published experts, you're flat our wrong about
that, about the metallurgy.
With respect to the measurably different levels of antimony, the sort
of ammo Oswald is supposed to have used is NO DIFFERENT than that of
many other types of jacketed ammunition.
As Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists, Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Pat
Grant, Ph.D., reported in an article published in the Journal of
Forensic Science in 2006, "The lead cores of the bullets (Guinn)
sampled from WCC lots 6000-6003 contained approximately 600-900 ppm
antimony and approximately 17-4516 ppm copper (with most of the copper
concentrations in the 20-400 ppm range). In both of these aspects, the
WCC MC bullets are quite similar to other commercial FMJ (full metal
jacketed) rifle ammunition."
Thus, they conclude, the JFK bullet 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."
You say they're wrong and you're right. If you were a metallurgist who
knew something about this, maybe it'd be worth listening to you, but
you're not.
So, to demonstrate to your dwindling band of co-religionists (and I
say this advisedly, because your view has been rejected by government
scientists and so must not be science-based, but something in the
nature of a faith-based creed of some sort) and to any lurkers, I want
to prove to them that AGAIN, you won't give us the name of ANY
credible authority who agrees with you that Western Cartridge Company
Mannlicher Carcano bullet lead is identifiably unique by NAA testing.
You won't, apparently, because you can't. So you do the next best
thing: you sashay!
Hell, by NAA, we can't now even tell that the fragments were fragments
from Western Cartridge bullets, Ken.
Gary
Gary A
Sashay, Ken, stonewalling, as usual.
YoHarvey
Let's keep it simple Gary. In your thinking, who shot Kennedy? And,
where is ballistic evidence of multiple shooters?
Gary A
wrote:
Of course, 40-yrs ago we believed J. Edgar Hoover was an honest and
honorable man. Now we know that he was a liar, a crook and a man who
approved sending innocent men to jail on a murder charge to protect
mafiosi in Boston. (Google <Hoover, Butterfiels, Boston, mafia> and
read all about it.
40-years ago we didn't know that Hoover had "file-checked" the Warren
Commissioners for "derogatory information," as if he needed to know
that Earl Warren, Allen Dulles, McCoy, Russell, etc. weren't commies.
40-years ago the FBI hadn't revealed it withheld the contents of
Oswald's notebook from the Commission and that it had destroyed
Oswald's note to FBI agent Hosty.
And 40-years ago we believed, because Anthony Lewis of the New York
Times, a man who first boosted the Warren Commission on page 1 on June
1st, 1964, 3 mos. before the W. Report was published, told us that the
Warren Commission had released all the evidence it had gathered,
whether agreeing with its conclusions or not.
But as a Warrenista, I'm scarcely surprised to see you say we haven't
learned anything new in 40-years, since this sort of stuff you'd not
like to know. And, besides you having no familiarity with the former,
you've obviously not read Randich and Grant's July, 2006 article in
the peer-reviewed Journal of Forensic Science; nor the article by
Spiegelman, Tobin, Wexler et al that was published this year; nor
Washington Post's Jefferson Morley's work; nor my essays up at
historymatters.com; nor Joan Mellen's new book; nor Gerald McKnight's
new university-press published book; nor Michael Kurtz's new,
university-published book, etc., etc., etc..
If you don't read what's new, why of course you aren't going to think
anything is new. Duh!
But since you seem to be very displeased when I keep bringing up new
evidence you've never heard about, do yourself a favor and make
yourself happy: Stop reading my posts and stop responding to them the
way you usually do - by admitting you've not read or learned anything
in the past 40 years.
Only a kind suggestion.
Gary
Kenneth A. Rahn
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189125407....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
It is in Gary's interest to alway criticize and try to keep the situation
unresolved. That way, he won't have to commit to real answers, which is
infinitely harder than carping from the sidelines.
Ken Rahn
Gary A
> YoHarvey,
>
> "YoHarvey" <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sashay, Ken, stonewalling, as usual, i see.
Which?
So give us a name, and stop your silly, and oh, so revealing
stonewalling, Ken.
Gary
justm...@gmail.com
> YoHarvey,
>
> "YoHarvey" <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
It appears Gary likes to copy and paste the same posts over and over
again. He must be trying to spam us like Rossley does...1000 posts,
and they all say nothing. Are you going to answer YoHarveys simple
question Gary or are you going to ignore it and run in the opposite
direction?
My guess is you've got your tennies on and you're heading out the
door!
Seems like you have Gary cornered Ken, keep up the good work.
YoHarvey
Gary? You're a chuckle. What you call new evidence is new to you
apparently and few others. Not one single thing has materially
changed in 44 years...and you know it. One has to believe that your
career as a doctor has not been what you anticipated. How else to
explain your lunacy. I asked you a direct question, and as you accuse
Rahn of doing, you do the same. You avoid it. You're a hoot Gary.
Kenneth A. Rahn
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189126804.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
My pleasure, Justme! :-)
Ken Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189126804.8...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Gary has been copying and pasting every since I have known him. A decade
ago, I tried to start a genuine dialog with him, and got hit with the same
thing.
Ken Rahn
justm...@gmail.com
> Justme,
>
> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ken,
Apparently Gary is unable to travel outside the box. It's a scarey
world out there..he feels more comfy in the confines of his one track
mind where he doesn't have to answer to anyone but himself. Must be a
terribly lonely life. The copy and pasting is a known technique for
those that lack any creativity or are unable to converse in a logical
manner. It seems to be the "In" thing when you can't answer a
question. Just look at the posts made by Holmes, Rossley and
Gary....the "Copy and Paste" queens.
Gary A
wrote:
Oh, dear! This is a thread on "Dr. Guinn And The NAA Tests." I'm
writing about that topic. But since Yo doesn't like that subject, he's
introduced another one more to his (and your?) liking. So why don't
you guys start another thread on that topic?
But I'll tell you what: I'll answer if Rahn answers and gives us the
name of any metallurgist in the world who agrees with him (and against
experts Randich and Grant) that Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano bullet
lead is distinctly different, identifiably different (NAA-wise) than
any other kind of jacketed ammunition.
If Rahn answers, and I warn you: he's refused to answer this for
months now, then I'll answer Yo's unrelated (to this thread) question.
Is it a deal?
Of course not, right? Because though you keep the Rahn faith in
public, you don't actually believe Rahn, do you?
Well, you're right not to, as I'm sure you know already. And Rahn
proves why you shouldn't believe him every time he dodges this
question - a question that goes right to the heart of his/Guinn's NAA
thesis. In fact, if he were to honestly answer, which he won't, rest
assurred, he would be cutting the heart of his own, debunked thesis
right out. And he ain't gonna commit suicide; not even for you.
Honesty would have fatal consequences, and so you won't be getting
anything but sashays from him, as usual. But he'll always decry others
for their unwillingness to 'engage intellectually.' It's a riot! And
you don't get the joke, perhaps because part of it is on you - a "true
believer" and your coterie of co-religionists.
Gary
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
No deal Gary. This has nothing to do with Ken not answering your
question, this is a question directly asked to you. You've managed to
weasle your way out of answering by putting the ball in Kens court.
Doing that just shows that you're unable to answer YoHarveys question.
You have your mind stuck in low gear with your NAA posts and that's
the only thing you are capable of talking about. Tell me Gary, do you
wear a pretty pink dress when you shashay away from a question? Or are
you one of those people who lives the double standard...it's ok for me
to do but not for someone else?
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
My question Gary is absolutely unrelated to this thread...and for a
reason. This thread has been done by you numerous times. It's dull.
It's boring. Basically, it's you Gary. You continue to beat a dead
horse. Your experts versus my expert. What's it prove? You are a
die hard conspiracist. So be it. Let's move on.
I don't ever recall hearing your theory on the assassination. I don't
recall ever hearing your theory on ballistics other than NAA. I don't
recall you addressing any evidence. Example. How do you address the
fibers from the blanket found in the Paine garage inside the bag
carrying the MC to the TSBD? How do you address the Oswald shirt
fibers found on the butt plate of the MC? To my knowledge, these
issues remain undisputed since 1964. When one looks at the totality
of the evidence, a rational person must reach only one conclusion.
You rational Gary?
David Von Pein
theory.
I've seen Bob Groden's, and his doesn't count....mainly because I'm
pretty sure he put his book up against the wall, took 10 darts, and
then randomly threw the darts against a photo of Dealey Plaza....and
wherever each dart landed, that's where he was going to say a gunshot
came from. (No wonder none came from the SN per Bob.) ;)
What's Gary Ag's anti-SBT theory? He's surely got one, right? And
without including CE399 no doubt.
Anyway, has anyone heard more than 3 CTers over the years actually
step up to the CT plate and purport a shot-by-shot theory to replace
the SBT? It's rare to have that happen, to be sure.
The best I could get out of Ben "Mega Kook" Holmes is this ultra-
detailed analysis --- "It was more than one shooter, David."
David Von Pein
>>> "We are either not communicating or you don't understand the import of the studies. What they are saying is that the FBI/Guinn conclusions are based on premises that are now proven to be totally false. .... So the bullet fragments found in JFK, Connally and the limo might have come from two or three 6.5 mm bullets, but they just as likely could have come from a 7.65mm, or a .30 caliber. That is why they are saying a probable second gunman." <<<
I understand the NAA situation perfectly. You seem to think that the
newer "broader" range of possibilities for the bullet fragments
somehow TOTALLY ELIMINATES Lee Oswald's gun from the general mix.
But Oswald's gun and his bullets have always been in that mix. And
still are, quite obviously.
And since we KNOW for an ironclad fact that TWO of the five specimens
in question are definitely specimens from Oswald's gun "to the
exclusion" (those being CE399 and CE567)....and with ZERO other pieces
of bullet or whole bullets in the mix that can be used to EXCLUDE
Oswald's own rifle....
You do the (common-sense) math.
Or is that possible for a CTer?
The ODDS that any non-Oswald fragments are among the only other THREE
fragments that are not linked (positively) to Oswald's rifle are
pretty slim by percentages (and via common sense).
40% of those 5 specimens are definitely from Oswald's rifle (#C2766).
And that 40% definitely includes TWO separate bullets, without
question. (And the preponderance of evidence indicates that ONLY TWO
BULLETS hit any victims in the limousine....a key point there.)
So....given these basic ballistics facts, now tell me the likelihood
of the other 60% of smaller fragments having come from other non-C2766
weapons.
garag...@gmail.com
John Fiorentino wrote:
> Tom:
>
> Tom says: "...and the data
> treatment has been found to be essentially a baseless method."
>
> Who said that Tom?
>
> John F.
>
If you're asking who said NAA in the JFK case is a "baseless method,"
while "baseless method" wouldn't be my choice of describing how it's
been invalidated, NAA in the Kennedy case has been proven invalid
nonetheless.
Here's my introduction to Pat Grant's rejoinder to Ken Rahn, from Mary
Ferrell's website:
Commentary on Dr. Ken Rahn's Work on the JFK Assassination
Investigation
by Patrick M. Grant
Introduction by Gary Aguilar. MD
In 2004 longstanding Warren Commission supporters, Ken Rahn, Ph.D. and
Mr. Larry Sturidvan, published two back-to-back articles in the
scientific literature hailing a sophisticated scientific technique,
neutron activation analysis (NAA), as the "Rosetta Stone" of the JFK
assassination. They said that NAA offered irrefutable evidence that
Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, had killed JFK. [1] For since NAA could
provide a "fingerprint" consisting of the precise quanta of trace
elements in the bullet fragments recovered from the crime, NAA, they
said, could prove that all the fragments traced directly to but two
bullets fired from Oswald's rifle.
Their reports were an elaboration of work first done by Vincent Guinn
for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s.
Echoing Guinn's sweeping conclusions about Kennedy's recovered bullet
evidence, they claimed, "that every fragment recovered is traceable to
OSWALD's (sic) rifle, that OSWALD's rifle was actually fired that day
(it was not a plant), and that none of the fragments or cartridge
cases were planted." [2] Although doubts about the statistics used in
the Guinn-Rahn-Sturdivan interpretation were first raised by Stanford
Linear Accelerator's Art Snyder, Ph.D. in Skeptic Magazine in 1998,
[3] the Rahn-Sturdivan papers stimulated interest in the subject of
NAA. The result is that two papers have since been published in the
scientific press debunking Guinn-Rahn-Sturdivan. [4]
The first, and perhaps most devastating, critique was a paper, Proper
Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives, published in the Journal
of Forensic Science by Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Pat Grant, Ph.D., two
Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists. [5] Unlike Rahn and Sturdivan, who
are longstanding Warren Commission supporters, Randich and Grant are
completely agnostic on the question of conspiracy. Their critique is
manifold, but a key element of it is that Rahn and Sturdivan (and
Guinn before them) misunderstood, and so misinterpreted, basic bullet
metallurgy. In addition, as first suggested by Art Snyder, [6] Guinn,
Rahn and Sturdivan used a flawed statistical model.
It was not long after Randich and Grant published that Rahn responded,
however not in the time-honored, scientific manner, with a letter to
the editor of the Journal of Forensic Science. Rahn instead put out a
rebuttal on his personal website. [7] Apprised of Rahn's
unconventional response, Erik Randich declined to comment. Pat Grant,
however, did respond, as per the following, making clear why, despite
Ken Rahn's claims to the contrary, understanding metallurgy does
matter.
[1] Rahn, KA, Sturdivan, LM. Neutron activation and the JFK
assassinaton - Part I. Data and interpretation Journal of
Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 205-213.
Sturdivan. LM, Rahn, KA. Neutron activation and the JFK assassination
- Part II. Extended benefits. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 215-222.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Snyder A, Snyder M. Case Still Open - Skepticism and the
Assassination of JFK. Skeptic Magazine, Vol. 6, #4, 1998.
[4] Erik Randich,1 Ph.D. and Patrick M. Grant,2 Ph.D. Proper
Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives. Journal of Forensic
Sciences, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4. doi:10.1111/j.
1556-4029.2006.00165.x. Available online at: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com.
Texas A&M Statistician Probes Bullet Evidence in JFK Assassination -
Team Calls for Reanalysis of "Fundamentally Flawed" Evidence Ruling
Out a Second Shooter." On-line at: http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/550/
[5] Ibid.
[6] Snyder A, Snyder M. (see footnote 3)
[7] Ken Rahn, Review of Randich and Grant's article on the NAA. On-
line at: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html.
And here's the first part of Grant's riposte:
Preliminary Remarks
Normally, when a concerned scientist has issues with a published work,
he or she will submit a letter of protest, criticism, or alternate
viewpoint to the journal in which publication occurred. That letter
will then be evaluated by the journal editor, perhaps given to other
technical staff for opinions of appropriateness, and, if published,
often answered or rebutted in the same issue by an accompanying letter
from the original authors. The protest letter is usually constrained
by the journal to be succinct, focused, and deal with valid technical
concerns, and such published communications are considered to be on a
reasonable scientific footing. The original authors may or may not
sway the interested reader with their subsequent response.
The narrative by Dr. Rahn in his recent Internet posting does not fall
into such a category of reasonable technical merit. Consequently, Rick
Randich is not inclined to participate in such rambling opinions, and
I do agree with Rick in the traditional sense of accepted scientific
protocol. However, I will play this game to some limited extent
because I have serious technical reservations about Dr. Rahn's
published work that may preclude his contributions to the
assassination debate. It is likely time that someone pointed them out
to interested readers, despite the completely unconstrained
informality of the Web ballpark that Dr. Rahn has chosen to play in.
First, some factual, but scientifically unimportant, errors in this
latest posting: Dr. Rahn claims that all of the metallurgy in our July
2006 Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) paper was exclusively Rick's,
while the statistical analyses were exclusively my own. He must have
fabricated this demarcation within his own mind, as neither Rick nor I
have ever claimed this. Indeed, the paper is jointly coauthored, and
responsibility for its entire content consequently lies with both
authors by definition. Were Dr. Rahn's supposition correct, two
separate papers with a single author each would have reasonably
resulted. In fact, Rick is quite knowledgeable about statistical
analysis, uses it routinely as a professional analyst, and it was a
necessary foundation for his work opposite the FBI in the
interpretation of bullet-lead compositional analyses and comparative
databases. As for myself, I have been an analytical separations
scientist for nearly 40 years, and the macro- and microsegration
behaviors of metallurgy are very analogous to the technique of
fractional crystallization or zone refining, used historically by
chemists to separate different compositional phases from mixtures or
solutions [see, e.g., E. W. Berg, Physical and Chemical Methods of
Separation, McGraw-Hill, 1963, chapter 9]. The two disciplines merely
use different terminology for the same phenomena.
Secondly, I was never in Vince Guinn's research group, nor was I ever
at the University of Maryland, where Vince moved after retiring from
UC Irvine. Rather, I worked with Vince at UCI during the late 60s-
early 70s. He was a member of my graduate oversight committee, and his
was one of three authorization signatures on my PhD thesis, but my
research advisor was always Professor F.S. Rowland. However, I have
always regarded Vince as an esteemed mentor in NAA and forensic
science, and we did collaborate together on one technical article
[Science 175: 1121 (1972)].
At UCI, I helped build the TRIGA nuclear reactor that Vince used for
his work in the JFK investigation, as well as in other projects, and
was an AEC-licensed senior operator for that reactor. George Miller
and I set up the Ge(Li) spectrometer system that Vince used for his
NAA work, and I performed the detector energy and efficiency
calibrations necessary for accurate results. I understand first-hand
how Vince did his JFK bullet analyses, the apparatus and reactor
irradiation ports that he used, and the relative errors inherent in
those various protocols. My PhD thesis with Sherry Rowland was on a
novel combination of NAA with hot-atom chemistry to obtain molecular,
not just elemental, information. Yet, Dr. Rahn would label me a latter-
day NAA revisionist? Exactly who is the poseur here?
Response to Internet Posting
But now let's get on with the real deal, and I'll address the major
issues presented in Dr. Rahn's posting. The first part of his offering
alludes to words of extremely questionable wisdom from a bandleader
and spends several pages on his subjective assessment of "strong,"
"absolute," and "weak" characteristics of various sentences written by
Rick and me in the JFS article. Now, I must admit that I've been
around for some time, but this is the first time I've ever seen a
completely arbitrary semantic development used as a technical
argument. I thought it reasonably entertaining actually, and kudos to
Dr. Rahn for forensic novelty (only in the debating sense, however),
but it would not pass muster as legitimate commentary in any valid
scientific forum that I know of. That's the beauty of the Web as a
communication medium, of course, and likely why Dr. Rahn chooses it in
lieu of a substantive letter to JFS. But don't kid yourself that
personal opinion necessarily has any semblance of merit in the absence
of formal review -- thus the well-established refereeing system for
legitimate technical publication. So, for example, while Wikipedia is
a convenient and free on-line encyclopedia, it is not guaranteed
accurate, and there are errors of content, some deliberately posted as
such. Although the refereed-journal system is not perfect either, it
at least has more scientific checks and formal technical inputs than
an Internet monologue.
Dr. Rahn claims that his counting of the number of grains in the thin
cross-sections of the MC round that we presented in Figure 5 of the
JFS article falls above what he would expect by factors of about 2-3.
He calculates this by considering that the diameter of a MC bullet is
6.5 mm and that our paper gives the typical grain sizes in the MC
rounds we inspected as 500-1000 µm in linear dimension (0.5-1 mm for
those who might otherwise have a hard time). However, his dilemma is
actually worse than that, as he either does not know, or has
overlooked the fact that 6.5 mm is the diameter of the entire bullet,
including the gilding-metal jacket. The diameter of the lead core is
actually 4.3 mm for most of the length of the bullet and, of course,
is a little less at the nose. This lack of fundamental understanding
by Dr. Rahn would otherwise serve to increase his factors of 2-3 to
discrepancies in the range of factors of 3-7. Now, the only way that
Dr. Rahn's calculation works is if grains of dimension < 500 µm exist,
which could give him a higher count across a given transversal. The
grains have irregular shapes and are randomly oriented in three
dimensions within the bullet structure. If a given bullet cross-
section happened to cut across tapering edges of some grains, they
could register as apparent, < 500-µm grain sizes. Empirical cross-
sections will invariably intersect such irregular grain boundaries, at
times producing higher grain counts than would result were all grains
transected only at their widest dimension. In fact, however, what we
actually wrote in the JFS article was:
It was observed that the individual grain sizes spanned a large range,
from less than 100 µm to greater than 1,000 µm. The average grain
dimension was approximately 500-1,000 µm, and several grains were >
1,200 µm in length ...
End of Grant.
I know, you don't like it, do you?
Until you can get something published on the topic in the peer-
reviewed scientific literature, John, proving these Lawrence Livermore
Lab Ph.D.'s wrong, please excuse me for not going with someone like
you who has no credentials whatsoever.
And why do you suppose Rahn never wrote a letter to the editor of the
journal that published Randich and Grant's paper, the Journal of
Forensic Science, if R and G were wrong. [Hint: they aren't wrong, or
Rahn would indeed have written that letter!]
Best wishes,
Gary
>
> "Tom" <thomasp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1189012373.1...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > David,
> >
> > You can string together all sorts of arguments, some of them even kind of
> > interesting. The central problem is has nothing to do with Dr. Guinn, or
> > his data, or the FBI data and so forth. The problem is science is not a
> > static thing and the fundamental basis for NAA analysis as a comparative
> > tool has been shown to be prone to faulty and misleading conclusions. The
> > group has covered this any number of ways over the last ten years. Turns
> > out bullet lead analysis is extremely difficult to do and the data
> > treatment has been found to be essentially a baseless method. Guinn did
> > the best he could, as did Kepler, but Kepler got it wrong as well.
> >
> > Tom
Gary A
> Justme,
>
> <justme1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I've copied and posted for a very good reason, Ken: I ask you a simple
and important question, such as, "Besides taking it on faith from you
and Guinn that Mannlicher Carcano bullets have a near unique NAA
profile, how else can we know the lead in MC bullets have an unique
NAA profile?, and you just won't answer. You sashay. It doesn't matter
than experienced metallurgists writing in the peer-review, scientific
literature say you're wrong.
So, as I did elsewhere in this thread, rather than typing the question
over again, I just copy and paste it over again, knowing full well
you'd never embarrass yourself by giving an honest answer.
And you haven't given that answer, which proves skeptics right about
you. And the Warrenistas? Why they'd believe you if you said the moon
was made of cheese, because you agree with them on the Kennedy case.
Ever notice how Warrenistas don't want to know whether any real,
qualified metallurgist agrees with your metallurgy, Ken? They don't
want to know for the same reason you don't want to tell them: it'd
rock their world. And drifting lazily along in the Rahn, faith-based,
science-eschewing community is sooo much more comforting.
Gary
Gary A
Well, in that case, your decision seems inescapable: avoid threads
about NAA.
In the meantime, I'm following the NAA thread.
Sorry if that displeases you. And sorry also that I have other
ambitions in my life than to please you, Yo.
You're how old?
Gary
Gary A
> MORE ABOUT GUINN AND NAA.........
>
> >>> "We are either not communicating or you don't understand the import of the studies. What they are saying is that the FBI/Guinn conclusions are based on premises that are now proven to be totally false. .... So the bullet fragments found in JFK, Connally and the limo might have come from two or three 6.5 mm bullets, but they just as likely could have come from a 7.65mm, or a .30 caliber. That is why they are saying a probable second gunman." <<<
>
> I understand the NAA situation perfectly. You seem to think that the
> newer "broader" range of possibilities for the bullet fragments
> somehow TOTALLY ELIMINATES Lee Oswald's gun from the general mix.
>
You don't understand the situation at all if you think #399 is solidly
in the evidentiary trail. With the problems there are with its
provenance, a competent defense attorney would have gotten that bullet
excluded from evidence in a nanosecond. #399 has all the marks of FBI
evidence tampering, such as when they ditched Oswald's note and
withheld the contents of his notebook from the Commission, etc. And
don't think these shenanegans escaped the notice of experienced,
government criminal investigators.
I know you hate government, but here's what the government had to say
about the FBI and CIA and the Kennedy case:
The FBI, the HSCA determined, had "generally exhausted its resources
in confirming its case against Oswald as the lone assassin, a case
that Director J. Edgar Hoover, at least, seemed determined to make
within 24 hours of the assassination." The Church Committee also
discovered that "derogatory information pertaining to both (Warren)
Commission members and staff was brought to Mr. Hoover's attention."
One can only wonder if the notorious Hoover might have sought such
information as insurance the Commission wouldn't deviate from Hoover's
lone nut theory - one that exculpated the Bureau (and Hoover) for not
shielding JFK from a successful plot.
Here's the Church Committee on your sine qua non: "Director Hoover,
the Justice Department and the White House 'exerted pressure' on
senior Bureau officials to complete their investigation and issue a
factual report supporting the conclusion that Oswald was the lone
assassin. Thus, it is not surprising that, from its inception, the
assassination investigation focused almost exclusively on Lee Harvey
Oswald."
Here's another from the Church Committee: "The Committee has developed
evidence which impeaches the process by which the intelligence
agencies arrived at their own conclusions about the assassination, and
by which they provided information to the Warren Commission. This
evidence indicates that the investigation of the assassination was
deficient and that facts which might have substantially affected the
course of the investigation were not provided the Warren Commission or
those individuals within the FBI and the CIA, as well as other
agencies of Government, who were charged with investigating the
assassination." That verdict was reaffirmed in a new book about the
CIA, Legacy of Ashes by New York Times journalist, Tim Weiner, who
wrote that in their investigation of the Kennedy assassination, the
FBI and CIA's "malfeasance was profound."
Gary
Footnotes:
House Select Committee on Assassinations. Final Assassinations Report,
p. 128. On-line at: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0079b.htm
Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations, Book V, p. 47. On-line at:
http://www.historymatters.com/archive/church/reports/book5/html/ChurchVol5_0027a.htm
Bugliosi, p. 339. Bugliosi's supporting reference, # 92, cites, p.
32 of Book V: The Investigation of the Assassination of President
J.F.K.: Performance of the Intelligence Agencies.
Book V: The Investigation of the Assassination of President J.F.K.:
Performance of the Intelligence Agencies, p. 32.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book5/html/ChurchVol5_0019b.htm
The Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy:
Performance of the Intelligence Agencies, Book V, Final Report of the
Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities, United States Senate, p. 6. On-line at:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/book5/html/ChurchVol5_0006b.htm
Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes, p. 228. New York, Doubleday, 2007, p.
228.
David Von Pein
Mr. Bugliosi seems to disagree with you on that one, Goofy Gary. (But,
then again, you probably know more about the law and what would be
admitted into evidence in court than ex-LA Deputy DA Bugliosi....right
GG? And you can always argue that among the 5% of inadmissible
evidence from the following VB quote, CE399 would be a part of that
5%. Vince doesn't say specifically however.)
Mr. Bugliosi said:
"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that
Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the
"chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not
strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....
"The first observation I have to make is that I would think
conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy,
not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.
"Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the
physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large
bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
"Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a
practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an
ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I
believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be
admissible.
"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a
trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain
is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless
admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to
"the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the
jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- VB; Page 442 of "RH"
endnotes
justm...@gmail.com
Gary still has the sashsay going on...David he's incapable of talking
about anything else. One topic and one topic only, the one he thinks
he's a know it all on. Hail the copy and paste queen, we're invading
his thread.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189132049....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Gary A
While I'm pleased that you've taken your talk out of the toilet, I
note that you now seem unable to refrain from the personal smear. My
general impression is that this is what people do when they're up
against the ropes and are losing badly. (But maybe I'm wrong. Tell me:
Is this a problem for you generally in life, or only when you feel
insecure that you resort to such low tactics?)
In any case, regarding the admissibility of #399, this isn't just my
uninformed speculation; it's already been the subject of direct
communications with Vince Bugliosi by me and James Lesar, JD - someone
who, as a practicing attorney active in courtroom cases for 30+ years,
has some familiarity with what is admissible and what wouldn't be.
Suffice it to say Lesar, who is mentioned by VB in his book, directly
challenged VB on the admissibility of #399 and VB, who wrote him back,
as he did me, on numerous issues, never answered that one.
And you'll note that in this very quote you proffer, he argues that
he'd have had no difficulty getting the fragments into evidence, but
remains strangely silent on #399. And for a very good reason, too. For
when I've run down the problems with #399, no practicing attorney
believes #399 would have withstood a challenge from the defense and
Bugliosi isn't about to give his colleagues the opportunity to point
out his folly were he to say the same about #399.
And on a general note, I think you're going to get into trouble if you
cite Bugliosi as authoritative. He's not an historian; he's not a
trained academic; he's a prosecutor and his book, despite his
pretensions, is a prosecutor's brief. Perhaps you should visit
www.reclaiminghistory.org for examples of Bugliosi's carelessness with
facts.
Gary
aeffects
wrote:
you idiots have been bounced all over the place on this yet you still
cling to the hope someone will rescue KRahn -- t'aint gonna happen
kiddies....
David Von Pein
Geesh. One single "bullshit" out of me and I have to bear the wrath of
Goofy Gary forever. Man.
>>> "I think you're going to get into trouble if you cite Bugliosi as authoritative." <<<
That's funny....I'm not the slightest bit worried that you think my
citing VB is going to get me "into trouble". Go figure.
And in my opinion, there's no better person on EARTH to cite than
Vince B.
That doesn't mean I always agree with everything VB says in his JFK
book. Because that's not the case at all. In fact, I disagree with him
on several different issues re. the Kennedy case....e.g., the timing
of when the SBT bullet struck the victims; the specifics of what
happened to the bullet from Oswald's first (missed) shot; the very
strange flip-flop that Vince seems to do on pages 423-424 re. the
HSCA's insane "upward" trajectory of the SBT bullet path through JFK's
body; and VB's criticism of Gerald Posner in a couple of places
(particularly with respect to a JBC bullet-fragment issue).
But even with my own above-mentioned criticisms, Vince has still
written the best book ever penned on the JFK assassination. And when
placed next to Dale Myers' comprehensive book on the J.D. Tippit
murder ("With Malice"), a researcher doesn't need to buy any other
books dealing with the events of November 22, 1963, in order to know
the full truth about what occurred that day in Dallas. (IMHO, that
is.)
>>> "He {VB} is not an historian; he's not a trained academic; he's a prosecutor, and his book, despite his pretensions, is a prosecutor's brief." <<<
Sure he's a prosecutor. And he DID "prosecute" Lee Harvey Oswald at a
mock trial. And he DID garner a conviction from 12 sworn Dallas
jurors. (Funny, huh?)
But the main items that Vince brings to the table that have been
lacking in so many other JFK publications and debates are CS&L (his
Common Sense & Logic, that is), which ooze from every single page of
"Reclaiming History".
Here, just have a look for yourself. I've made it easy....because I've
documented gobs of Vincent's CS&L right here (and there's plenty more
where these examples came from too):
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
>>> "Perhaps you should visit reclaiminghistory.org for examples of Bugliosi's carelessness with facts." <<<
Oh, I've seen that stuff at RH-dot-org. And none of it undercuts
Vince's book or VB's bottom-line conclusions of LHO acting alone.
People there think they've "scored points" by bringing up something
that they say Vince has conveniently left out of his book.
But the best they can do is claw at the dead air....because for 20
years Vince has examined the JFK case and has found "no credible
evidence" of anyone else's involvement in Kennedy's murder other than
Lee Harvey Oswald's.
If Vince didn't dig deep enough into David Mantik's lunacy on the
6.5mm. "object"....or if VB didn't cross every T to a CTer's
satisfaction with respect to someone else's theories on the case....it
matters very, very little in the final analysis.
Because the CTers (in the final analysis) simply HAVE NO HARD EVIDENCE
to support their far-reaching claims of a conspiracy in JFK's murder.
It's as simple as that. And always has been.
Allow me to prop up VB yet again, via the following Vince quote from
the Introduction of "Reclaiming History":
"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively
savaged Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much
more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and
an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything
to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and
objectivity. I have no others." -- VB; "RH"; Pages xxxviii-xxxix
~~~~~~~~~~
And, once again for the hard-of-hearing, allow me to reiterate this VB
quote re. inadmissible evidence:
Gary A
Sashay, Mr. VP!
In his book VB doesn't say he could have gotten #399 into evidence
because he's already been challenged by an attorney with whom he'd
repeatedly corresponded (and whom he cites in his book) and VB never
offered an explanation for how he'd have gotten #399 into evidence.
And Bugliosi is saying here that excluding evidence rarely happens
BECAUSE the chain of evidence isn't usually weak, not because a piece
of evidence with a weak chain of possession is routinely admitted. I
mean, duh!
Why VB specifically mentions he'd have had no difficulty getting the
fragments into evidence, but stays strangely silent on getting the
more important piece of evidence, #399, into evidence, is pretty damn
obvious to anyone, but a Warrenista, of course!
And in this case, #399's chain of possession has all the marks of FBI
evidence tampering of the sort Hoover is famous for.
Remember, even the the SAC of the Dallas's FBI office, Gordon
Shanklin, said that neither Tomlinson Nor Wright could identify #399
as the bullet they found on the stretcher on 11/22.. And remember also
that a former Dallas Deputy Police Chief, O.P. Wright said #399 wasn't
the bullet he had that day, and, as Tink Thompson has said, Wright had
a educated eye for bullets. And remember as well that the FBI agent
who is supposed to have gotten the admission from Tomlinson and Wright
that #399 resembled the stretcher bullet, Bardwell Odum, flatly denied
that he'd ever interviewed either Tomlinson or Odum, that he'd ever
even seen #399 or that he'd ever interviewed anyone about any bullet
at Parkland.
But in you I sense a Bugliosi fellow traveler in that you snipped VB's
self adoring quote about how how, while others have effectively
savaged Posner, he (Bugliosi) is no mere Posner, etc. At least
Bugliosi recognizes that Posner's word is unreliable, while,
apparently because he sings the Warren Commission's songs, your faith
in Posner vastly exceeds Bugliosi's.
But you're much like Bugliosi, and Posner for that matter, in one way
- your selectivity. When you quoted Bugliosi's self praise, from the
above quote of VB's saying he's no mere Posner, you clipped his
devastating quote about Posner (taken from the LA Times review of
Posner's book): : "(Gerald Posner) presents only the evidence that
supports the case he's trying to build, framing this evidence in a way
that misleads readers who aren't aware that there's more to the
story." Bugliosi's certainly right about that!
But from my reading of Bugliosi and Ponser, they're birds of a
feather. Bugliosi's the pot calling the kettle black. They both
selectively present evidence they want the reader to see and withhold
inconvenient evidence, or distort the evidence they presen,t to reach
their predrawn conclusions.
I know, I know: Bugliosi's right about everything but the most minor
of details, and of course Posner, eh?
Ha!
Gary
aeffects
Actually, DVP is also quite fond of quoting *himself*.... these dolts
actually believe LHO was tried and convicted....
Fat...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Sep 6, 10:07 am, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> And it was one official that we had been attacked without provocation
> in the Gulf of Tonkin on 8/4/64. Well, we weren't attacked on 8/4/64
> and we'd been very energetically trying to provoke North Vietnam into
> a war with our Op-Plan 34A raids and our DeSoto patrols.
>
Horseshit. Oplan 34A was a Mickey Mouse plan that didn't amount to a
hill of beans. Several communist attacks against U.S. military
installations had already occurred and more were coming. We didn't
need to provoke the communist; they saw our bases as targets of
opportunity.
But I wish it hadn't all came down as it did. Then you wouldn't have
had to dodge the draft and still be pissing and moaning about it 40
years later.
Bill Clarke
David Von Pein
You'd better read what VB wrote again, because you've mangled his
meaning. (On purpose, I would surmise.)
Vince is not saying here that a weak chain is "rare"....he's saying
that excluding evidence when there is a weak chain is "rare"......
Gary A
If I hadn't gotten such a high lottery number then maybe I'd have had
to figure a way to behave like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. and
explain to the Draft Board the importance of my "other priorities."
But I didn't have to worry about anything since my number never came
up.
And on the question of the Gulf of Tonkin, you're spouting the party
line. I'm surprised you're not saying that we didn't secretly bomb
Cambodia! ; ~ }
In any case, we were lied to over and over again about that Tonkin
pretext.
Here's a little history for ya:
By phone, Thursday, 5/30/02: George Herring: (Professor, History, U.
Kentucky, 859-373-9001): McNamara didn't tell all he knew to Congress
in stumping for the G. of T. Resolution.
By phone, Thursday, 5/30/02: Ed Moise: (Professor at Clemson, So.
Carolina. Ph. - 864-656-...): McN not entirely honest. There are
probably things he didn't know, but there were things he surely knew
and didn't tell, things related to our involvement in the
"provocations." The PT boats the South was using, for example, were
U.S. Navy boats - their ownership had never been transferred to the
S.V.N.
McN specifically denied U.S. involvement in the PT raids, certainly
deliberate falsehood. The South Vietnamese PT boat captains took their
orders for the raids directly from the U.S. Navy, and McNamara may
well have known that specifically, he definitely knew the U.S. was
complicit in the raids, something he specifically denied to Congress
and in public.
Moreover, in '68, McN repeatedly defended his assertions the attacks
at Tonkin were unprovoked, and he would certainly then have known then
about the U.S.'s provocations.
"What Congress did not know when it passed the (Gulf of Tonkin)
resolution was that 34A operations were going on in the vicinity when
the North Vietnamese attacked the Maddox. The Maddox was also engaged
in what some skeptics would have considered hanky-panky. The destroyer
was on a DESOTO patrol, a mission to gather electronic, radar, and
communications intelligence off the DRV coast." (p. 102 - 103.) Wayne
Morse, who voted against the resolution, got inklings from a tip about
the Maddox's true shenanigans. (p. 103.) [Leslie H. Gelb, "The Irony
of Vietnam: the System Worked." Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution, 1979.)
"Three nights before, on July 30, the first serious naval operations
of this covert campaign had taken place when two North Vietnamese
islands, Hon me and Hon Ngu, were attacked by four high-speed
motorboats manned by South Vietnamese commandos trained and armed by
the CIA. The islands were a mere three and four miles off the North
Vietnamese coast. Simultaneously, the U.S. destroyer Maddox received
orders to patrol just eight miles off the coast of North Vietnam, well
within the territorial waters claimed by Hanoi." ("Color of Truth," p.
286.)
"Mac Bundy quickly realized that the North Vietnamese attack on the
Maddox was a direct response to the 34-A operation. Indeed, Mike
Forrestal reported to Mac on August 3, "It seems likely that the North
Vietnamese and perhaps the Chicoms [ Chinese Communists] have assumed
that the destroyer was part of this operation ... It is also possible
that Hanoi deliberately ordered the attack in retaliation for the
harassment of the islands." (Cited in Kai Bird, "Color of Truth," p.
286.)
"When McNamara returned to the Pentagon at three that afternoon
(August 4, 1964), he was informed that the commander of the Maddox now
had doubts about whether the second attack had actually taken place. A
review of the 'engagement,' Navy Captain John J. Herrick cabled,
'makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear very doubtful
... Freak weather effects and overeager sonarmen may have accounted for
many reports. No actual sightings by Maddox." (Kai Bird, Color of
Truth, p. 287.)
"Senator Wayne Morse (D-Ore.), charged that the Maddox's mission was
part of South Vietnamese patrol boat raids on the North. (Morse had
received his information from an informant with access to classified
information.) (sic)." (Kai Bird. The Color of Truth. New York; Simon &
Schuster, 1998, p. 287. Refers to Edwin Moise's book, p. 288.)
"In obtaining the congressional resolution, McNamara flatly told
Congress that the U.S. Navy 'played absolutely no part in, was not
associated with, was not aware of, any South Vietnamese action, if
there were any. I want to make that very clear to you. The Maddox was
operating in international waters, was carrying out a routine patrol
of the type we carry out all over the world at all times. It was not
informed of ... any possible South Vietnamese actions....'
"All of this was less than the full truth. The CIA's John McCone
himself had bluntly told the president on August 4, 'The North
Vietnamese are reacting defensively to our attacks on their off-shore
islands.' If McNamara had somehow convinced himself that the phantom
battle of August 4 had actually taken place, he nevertheless blatantly
deceived Congress when he claimed that the Maddox and Turner Joy had
no relationship to the 34-A operations that had so clearly provoked
the North Vietnamese ... In fact, one mission of the 34-A patrol boat
attacks was to provoke the North Vietnamese to turn on their shore
radar units, allowing the Maddox to use its sophisticated electronic
gear to pinpoint the location of these radar units. The intelligence
derived by the Maddox was therefore directly related to the 34-A
patrol boat attacks." " (Color, p. 288-289)
Admiral James Stockdale. Shot down in 1965, Stockdale spent 7 & ½
years in prisoner-of-war camps:
"The visibility from the deck of the destroyer was nowhere near as
good as it was for me circling around at a thousand feet, surveying
the whole area. They later found sailors who claimed to have seen
sparkling things in the water, but most of those 'sparkling things'
sightings were dreamed up a couple of days later, when de-briefings
were conducted after a message from Washington demanded 'proof.' I
know of no responsible person who considers them anything but bunk ...
People say, 'Wasn't it a dark night?' Yes, it was dark as hell and
that's why I could see so well. The wake would have been luminous. The
ricochets would have been sparkling, the gunfire of the PT boats would
have been red and bright. I'm sure I'd have seen anything within five
miles of those boats during the hour and a half I was there. No
question about it. No boats were there and when I got back to the
ship, the commander of the destroyers had come to the same conclusion.
He [cabled Washington] (sic) 'Please don't take any rash action until
you verify this.' In other words please disregard the [earlier] (sic)
messages he'd been sending." ... These cables " (The Bad War: An Oral
History of the Vietnam War. New York: A Newsweek Book, Nal Books, New
American Library, 1987, p. 30 - 31)
"And then I was awakened about two hours later by a young officer and
told that they have received word from Washington that we're going to
retaliate. And I said, 'Relaliate for what?' And he said, 'for last
night's attack.' He didn't know any better. Well, I sat there on the
edge of the bed realizing that I was one of the few people in the
world that realized we were going to launch a war under false
pretenses. And sure enough, the next day we did. I led this big horde
of airplanes over there and we blew the oil tanks clear off the
map." (The Bad War: An Oral History of the Vietnam War. New York: A
Newsweek Book, Nal Books, New American Library, 1987, p. 31)
"I'm a warrior and you can see I'm a hawk, but I'm going to tell you
that when you get into war you've got to be very sure that you are on
honest, solid rock foundations or it's going to eat you alive. In a
real war, you just cannot risk losing moral leverage, which [LBJ] did
... Well, I am the guy who rose from the ashes, and twenty years later
telling you I saw it, and there were no boats ... I told them what the
truth was. A message went out from the ship to Washington right after
I had landed, saying that I had seen no boats ... I had always thought
the government worked just like Poli. Sci. One and Two said it did.
And now I realized that this was a goddamned fiasco and I was part of
it." (The Bad War: An Oral History of the Vietnam War. New York: A
Newsweek Book, Nal Books, New American Library, 1987, p. 32-33)
"[On August 11, 1964] the phone rang. It was Captain Hutch Cooper. He
said, 'Jim, a couple of guys just came aboard and say they want to
talk to you ... .' There were two guys in sports shirts and slacks, one
about my age and the other younger. The older one introduced himself
as Jack Stempler, special assistant to Secretary McNamara ... [Stemper
asked] 'Were there any fuckin' boats out there the other night or
not?' And this [interview occurred] four hours after they'd signed the
'declaration of war.'" (The Bad War: An Oral History of the Vietnam
War. New York: A Newsweek Book, Nal Books, New American Library, 1987,
p. 34)
I can't find this quote after a quickie check, but for those
interested in what LBJ and McNamara were saying to each other
privately, and how they were hoodwinking congress and the public about
what the USA was really doing to provoke North Vietnam ("unprovoked
attack," indeed!), an excellent source are the raw transcripts of
conversations between LBJ and McNamara. See: Beschloss's "Taking
Charge." New York: Simon & Schuster, p. 492 to 509.
Here's what's on p. 494-5:
Conversation on August 3, 1964, the day before the bogus attack in the
Gulf of Tonkin: LBJ: They're (congress) gonna start an investigation
if you don't (of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident.") You say, 'They fired
at us, we responded
immediately and we took out one of their boats and put the other two
running and we're putting out boats right there and we're not running
'em in.'
McNamara: "We should also at that time, Mr. President, explain this
Op- Plan 34A, these covert operations. There's no question that that
had bearing on it: On Friday night, as you probably know, we had four
PT boats from Vietnam manned by Vietnamese or other nationals attack
two islands ... Following 24-hours after that, with this destroyer
(Maddox) in that
same area - undoubtedly led them (the North Vietnamese) (sic) to
connect the two events..." On p. 509: after LBJ and McN had spoken
about the USA's involvement in attacks on two N. Vietnamese islands on
July 30 and 31st, the following exchange occurred, this time on August
8th, 1964:
McNamara: ... I do think if you have a press conference today you're
going to get questions on the claim of the North Vietnamese that their
strike (a real one) on the 2nd (August) against the Maddox was
retaliation for U.S. participation in the strike of July 30th and 31st
against those islands ... This is a very delicate subject... LBJ:
What's the net of it?
McNamara: The net of it is that you state categorically that U.S.
forces did not participate in, were not associated with any alleged
incident of that kind..."
In other words, LBJ and McNamara were conspiring to deceive the world
about America's then-unknown, clandestine warfare against North
Vietnam.
I'm sure you hate all historians who prove war-makers liars, but it
can't be helped.
Truth will out.
Gary
Gary A
Very nice sashay!
Channeling Bugliosi, you've completely ignored how weak the chain of
evidence for #399 is/was. The Dallas FBI office wouldn't vouch for it;
Tomlinson and Wright wouldn't vouch for it and the FBI agent who is
supposed to have interviewed Tomlinson and Wright, Bardwell Odum,
wouldn't vouch for it, either. Nor did Odum say he'd even interviewed
Tomlinson and Wright. He said: It never happened. Period.
AND, most amusingly, the internal FBI record bears that "dissident"
agent out: he said that if he'd actually interviewed Tomlinson and
Wright, there'd be FD-302 reports in the file saying so, and he dared
me to find them. Well I asked the FBI to find them and they couldn't
and so I had the National Archives look for them and they said they'd
scoured all the extant files and they said there were NO 302(S) from
Bardwell Odum about anything in any way related to #399, or "C-1"
which is what the FBI labeled #399 when the Bureau entered some bullet
into evidence prior to #399's being entered into evidence before the
Commission.).
So just as the FBI "proved" Nixon was innocent of Watergate, after
what it called the 'most exhaustive investigation since the JFK
assassination,' and just as Hoover let innocent men go to prison for a
murder rap so as to protect the guilty, mafia murderer*, just as
Hoover/FBI destroyed Oswald's note and withheld the contents of
Oswald's notebook from the prying eyes of the Warren Commission, so, I
submit, the FBI also "proved" Oswald shot #399 through JFK and
Connally. (You're gonna have to pick friends with better credibility,
VP. ; ~ } )
And in any case, evidence Thompson developed in 1966 showed that
whatever bullet it was that turned up on a stretcher didn't turn up on
John Connally's stretcher in the first place. It apparently was picked
up off a boy's stretcher, Ronald Fuller's. ( "Six Seconds in Dallas,"
p. 161-164.)
Gary
*PS Here's your hero, Hoover, in action protecting a mafia murderer by
sending innocent men to jail in his place, not long after when he did
his 'sterling' work for the Warren Commission:
Published on Sunday, August 25, 2002 in the New York Times
Hoover's F.B.I. and the Mafia:
Case of Bad Bedfellows Grows
by Fox Butterfield
BOSTON - It was March 1965, in the early days of J. Edgar Hoover's war
against the Mafia. F.B.I. agents, say Congressional investigators,
eavesdropped on a conversation in the headquarters of New England's
organized-crime boss, Raymond Patriarca.
Two gangsters, Joseph Barboza and Vincent Flemmi, wanted Mr.
Patriarca's permission to kill a small-time hoodlum, Edward Deegan,
"as they were having a problem with him," according to an F.B.I. log
of the conversation. "Patriarca ultimately furnished this O.K.," the
F.B.I. reported, and three days later Mr. Deegan turned up dead in an
alley, shot six times.
It was an extraordinary situation: The Federal Bureau of Investigation
had evidence ahead of time that two well-known gangsters were planning
a murder and that the head of the New England Mafia was involved.
But when indictments in the case were handed down in 1967, the real
killers - who also happened to be informers for the F.B.I. - were left
alone. Four other men were tried, convicted and sentenced to death or
life in prison for the murder, though they had had nothing to do with
it.
One, Joseph Salvati, who spent 30 years in prison, filed notice with
the Justice Department last week that he planned to sue the F.B.I. for
$300 million for false imprisonment.
His is the latest in a series of lawsuits against the F.B.I., the
Justice Department and some F.B.I. agents growing out of the tangled,
corrupt collaboration between gangsters and the F.B.I.'s Boston office
in its effort to bring down the mob.
The lawsuits are based on evidence uncovered in the last five years in
a judicial hearing and a Justice Department inquiry. But some of the
most explosive evidence has only recently come to light, including
documents detailing conversation in which Mr. Patriarca approved the
murder. They were released as part of an investigation by the House
Committee on Government Reform, which has pressured the department
into turning over records about the F.B.I in Boston.
The documents show that officials at F.B.I. headquarters, apparently
including Mr. Hoover, knew as long ago as 1965 that Boston agents were
employing killers and gang leaders as informers and were protecting
them from prosecution.
"J. Edgar Hoover crossed over the line and became a criminal himself,"
said Vincent Garo, Mr. Salvati's lawyer. "He allowed a witness to lie
to put an innocent man in prison so he could protect one of his
informants."
Mr. Barboza was a crucial witness at trial against Mr. Salvati and may
have implicated him because Mr. Salvati owed $400 to a loan shark who
worked for Mr. Barboza.
Asked about the documents showing that Mr. Hoover knew of Mr.
Salvati's innocence when he was put on trial, Gail Marcinkiewicz, a
spokeswoman for the F.B.I. in Boston, declined to comment, citing the
pending litigation.
A Justice Department task force is continuing to investigate
misconduct in the Boston office. In one of the first results of the
investigation, one retired agent, John J. Connolly, is awaiting
sentencing next month after being convicted of racketeering and
obstruction of justice for helping two other mob leaders who were
F.B.I. informers, James Bulger and Stephen Flemmi. Vincent and Stephen
Flemmi are brothers.
The Government Reform Committee, led by Representative Dan Burton,
Republican of Indiana, has uncovered memorandums from the Boston
office to headquarters in Washington revealing the bureau's knowledge
that Vincent Flemmi and Mr. Barboza were involved in killing Mr.
Deegan. A memorandum a week after the killing described the crime,
including who fired the first shot.
Then, on June 4, 1965, Mr. Hoover's office demanded to know what
progress was being made in developing Vincent Flemmi as an informer.
In a reply five days later, the special agent in charge of the Boston
office said that Mr. Flemmi was in a hospital recovering from gunshot
wounds but because of his connections to Mr. Patriarca "potentially
could be an excellent informant."
The agent also informed Mr. Hoover that Mr. Flemmi was known to have
killed seven men, "and, from all indications, he is going to continue
to commit murder." Nevertheless, the agent said, "the informant's
potential outweighs the risk involved."
A Congressional investigator called the exchange chilling. "The most
frightening part is that after being warned about Flemmi's murders,
the director does not even respond," the investigator said. "There is
no message not to use a murderer as a government informant."
The origin of the corruption scandal was public and political pressure
on Mr. Hoover to move more forcefully against the growing power of the
Mafia, which he had largely ignored. In Boston, F.B.I. agents
recruited Mr. Barboza and Mr. Flemmi and developed close ties to a
rival criminal organization, the Winter Hill Gang, led by Mr. Bulger.
Both sides got what they wanted, according to the investigations and
the trial of Mr. Connolly. The F.B.I. got information that eventually
helped destroy the Patriarca and Angiulo families, which controlled
organized crime in New England. Mr. Bulger's gang was able to take
over the rackets in Boston, sell drugs and even commit murder while
the F.B.I. looked the other way.
One reason the F.B.I. may not have used its information about Mr.
Patriarca's involvement in the Deegan murder, Congressional
investigators say, is that it came from an illegal listening device in
his Providence, R.I., headquarters. The F.B.I. agent who transcribed
the conversation made it appear that the information was coming from
unnamed informants, to disguise the use of the device, the
investigators say.
Mr. Salvati, a former truck driver, now 69, had his sentence commuted
in 1997 by Gov. William F. Weld. Last year, while he was still on
parole, his murder conviction was dismissed by a Massachusetts state
judge after the Justice Department task force made public documents
suggesting his innocence.
Two of the other wrongly convicted men died in prison. Their survivors
have joined the fourth man, Peter Limone, in a $375 million lawsuit
against the Justice Department. Mr. Limone was sentenced to die in the
electric chair. His life was spared only when Massachusetts outlawed
the death penalty in 1974.
Mr. Salvati lives in a modest apartment in Boston's North End with his
wife, Marie, who visited him in prison every week during those 30
years. Each week Mr. Salvati sent her a romantic card, which she put
on the television set. It was, Mr. Garo said, all they had of each
other.
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
David Von Pein
Then it was pretty gosh-darn stupid of the INSIDE PLOTTERS & COVER-
UPPERS (whoever the hell you think "they" were) to place a bullet into
evidence that those plotters MUST SURELY HAVE KNOWN WASN'T GOING TO BE
IDENTIFIED BY THE WITNESSES AS THE REAL STRETCHER BULLET.
Wouldn't you agree, Gary?
BTW, who were the people who failed to receive that all-inclusive
"We're Framing Oswald" memo on 11/22 and in the days and weeks prior
to 11/22, Gary? --- Odum? Rowley? Frazier? Todd? Didn't the plotters
KNOW they had placed into evidence a bullet that looked NOTHING like
the real stretcher bullet?
In other words, why not just simply sweep the "pointy" bullet under
the rug (like CT-Kooks believe DID happen with the "real" pointy-nosed
stretcher bullet and with scads of other assassination evidence too,
like the several OTHER "real" bullets that CTers think hit JFK & JBC
by multiple non-Oswald guns but were never seen by human eyes after
the shooting), instead of performing the asinine mistake of switching
bullets and replacing it with a bullet that "they" (i.e., the
proverbial and always-unnamed plotters/conspirators) had to know would
never be IDed as the real stretcher bullet?
Did the bullet-switchers merely assume that Tomlinson and Wright (et
al) would lie their asses off and say that 399 WAS the bullet they
saw, even though (per CTers) it definitely wasn't?
Which reminds me of an interesting point that I don't think anyone's
ever brought up before --- Why didn't the evil conspirators who were
orchestrating this supposed "multi-gun, one-patsy" assassination plot
bother to "plant" the appropriate number of bullet shells under
Oswald's window THAT WOULD PERFECTLY MATCH THE "REAL" NUMBER OF SHOTS
FIRED THAT DAY BY ALL SHOOTERS?
Seems to me that should have been done...instead of planting only
three shells in the window. Did these boob plotters think that the
additional 2, 3, 4, or more gunshots from all those non-Oswald guns
would not be heard by anybody among the 300+ witnesses in and near
Dealey Plaza?
Or maybe these goofs just didn't give a damn that they were firing
TWICE the number of total shots at JFK that could have been fired by
Oswald (per Oliver Stone's flick), so they only bothered planting 3
shells, and just hoped against hope that all or most of the witnesses
would say they heard just three shots fired (which, of course, DID
happen, with virtually all witnesses [90%+] hearing three or fewer
shots). Lucky plotters indeed. ....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/shots3.jpg
Anyway, the whole idea of planting and/or switching the stretcher
bullet is loony on EVERY front...even from a CT front.
Why can't you see that fact?
==============================================
TOO MANY CE399 BULLET FRAGMENTS IN JOHN CONNALLY? HARDLY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bf79593cce78406
IF CE399 DIDN'T WOUND CONNALLY, WHAT BULLET DID?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f90802d6225a380e
==============================================
eca...@tx.rr.com
You're the Man!
Ed
Fat...@aol.com
> On Sep 7, 6:19 pm, "Fatm...@aol.com" <Fatm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > But I wish it hadn't all came down as it did. Then you wouldn't have
> > had to dodge the draft and still be pissing and moaning about it 40
> > years later.
>
> > Bill Clarke
>
> If I hadn't gotten such a high lottery number then maybe I'd have had
> to figure a way to behave like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. and
> explain to the Draft Board the importance of my "other priorities."
> But I didn't have to worry about anything since my number never came
> up.
>
Well hotshot, just how high was your number? And how did you maneuver
before the lottery came into being?
Thanks for the long and boring reply of things I already knew.
Bill Clarke
justm...@gmail.com
My fingers tired from having to scroll thru 2000 lines of useless
text. Y'all remember Charlie Brown and his teacher? When she spoke it
was wah wah wah wah wah ....sounds very much like Garys posts. Blah
blah blah blah blah....lord this man loves to hear himself. Your days
in the limelight are over Gary...move on, maybe practice being a
proctologist...theres enough assholes on here to keep you busy
darthpup
patrol boats. The PT boats fired twelve torpedoes, all missed the
Maddox. This was in International waters. This was plain and simple
an act of war. The Maddox fired its five inch gun and sank two of the
PTs and disabled the other one.
Vietnam, with all its help from the oil industry is only able to
produce three hundred thousand barrels of oil each day from all its
reservoirs.
garag...@gmail.com
> >>> "Including the fact the bullet wasn't found on Connally's stretcher, but on Ronnie Fuller's? You're such a true believer, VP. How marvelously "patriotic" you are!" <<<
>
> Was Ronnie Fuller shot by a MC bullet from Oswald's rifle on 11/22/63,
> Gary?
>
> If not, I guess Darrell Tomlinson must have been wrong about his
> initial impression re. which stretcher he got the bullet off of.
>
> Which, of course, he FULLY ADMITTED to the WC all along was a very
> distinct possibility. Why so many CTers want to have Tomlinson
> POSITIVELY plucking that bullet off of Fuller's stretcher is yet
> another mystery. Because he's certainly not DEFINITIVE in his
> testimony. He sounds pretty confused to me, in fact.
He was "confused" because Specter wanted certain conclusions and
Tomlinson was frightened and intimidated. It's pretty clear from his
testimony.
So your position is a pretty simple one, isn't it? EVERYONE was
"confused."
* Tomlinson and Wright, when they were unable to identify #399,
according to the June 20th memo from Dallas..
* Dallas's Special Agent in Charge, Gordon Shanklin, when he wrote
Hoover that neither Tomlinson nor Wright could identify #399.
* Wright, a former Dallas Deputy Chief of Police, when he was adamant
that #399 was NOT the bullet he'd held in his hand on 11/22.
* And even the FBI agent, Bardwell Odum, who is supposed to have heard
Tomlinson and Wright say that #399 resembled the stretcher bullet - he
must have been completely confused, too!
Yup, everyone who disputes the official story, be they FBI agents,
Deputy Police Chiefs, Dallas SAC's, or ordinary citizens, must be
confused. Because we know for a fact that John Edgar Hoover, a
towering symbol of integrity and honor, would NEVER, EVER, permit lies
and untruths into the record.
Well, perhaps you're completely right, VP.
Or perhaps you're a little too patriotic.
No offense, but, I vote for #2.
Gary
David Von Pein
www.amazon.com/Message-Patricia-Lambert-apology-Bugliosi/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/15/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=360&cdItems=25&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2BIAJ1407T4PK#Mx2BIAJ1407T4PK
>>> "The latest Texas A&M research does NOT preclude multiple bullets. So you cannot say definitively that only bullets and fragments from Oswald's gun were found." <<<
Let's get this straight too.....the latest NAA studies certainly do
NOT *EXCLUDE* Lee Oswald's WCC/MC bullets in the mix either. Those
bullets are just as much in the mix as they ever were. They haven't
all of a sudden been excluded and tossed out.
The ONLY thing those recent studies on NAA have done is to slightly
reduce the probability factor of the lead in the 5 Guinn samples
having come from the same batch of bullet lead.
But COMMON SENSE is still on Dr. Guinn's side, Richard. Use your
head...and these facts:
Only 2 bullets struck victims in the car. (Argue this point till
doomsday; but the official WC/HSCA versions say this is absolutely a
FACT; not a theory, but a fact!)
2 of the 5 Guinn samples tested were POSITIVELY from Oswald's rifle
(CE399 and CE567). And that doesn't require NAA to conclude that, as
you well know. Regular ballistics IDing of those 2 specimens says
those came from C2766 "to the exclusion".
So, we're left with three other Guinn samples...none big enough to be
tested by more-conventional land/groove analysis, right? Right. (Which
is pretty remarkable by itself...I mean the fact that NO OTHER
FRAGMENTS from all of those other THREE guns you say were popping away
at JFK that day left any pieces of bullet large enough to be tested to
PROVE they could not have come from LHO's weapon; amazing right
there.)
But, anyway, we have 40% of the samples positively from TWO DIFFERENT
C2766 bullets. And three smaller samples that COULD have come from
C2766. And since the victims were hit by JUST TWO BULLETS -- do the
math!
The odds that ANY of those three remaining fragments came from ANY gun
other than Oswald's C2766 are extremely remote, at best.
How can anyone argue with the basic, common-sense analysis I've just
laid out above?
David Von Pein
I wonder how those plotters "planted" a hunk of that planted bullet
inside John Bowden Connally's wrist on 11/22.
Let me guess -- You don't trust NAA/Guinn?
(Just wanted to jump-start Gary Ag. on this topic again. He likes it.)
But I DO seriously wonder, if multiple guns were being aimed at JFK,
how it's possible that ZERO fragments/bullets from any non-Oswald guns
managed to be recovered that were large enough to be tested by
conventional (non-NAA) ballistics means?
Any ideas, Gary? (If you can refrain from using the words "swept under
the rug" it'd be a refreshing change. Thanks.)
Gary A
You mean ONE piece bullet evidence - one of the large pieces from the
limousine.
#399's bona fides are highly suspect. A former Deputy Police Chief of
Dallas, O.P. Wright, and an FBI agent, Bardwell Odum, have pretty much
demolished the chain of possession for #399 that the FBI came up with,
and these witnesses are perhaps the best witnesses going.
So, sure, "some" bullet turned up on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher, but
where it went is anyone's guess. Probably the same place Oswald's note
to James Hosty went.
After all, how much does the FBI's word mean? To you, of course, it's
Holy Writ. To most thoughtful observers it's something a bit
different. The FBI, for example, proved, so it said, that Nixon was
innocent of Watergate after what the acting Attorney Gen (Kleindienst)
said, with unintended irony, was the most exhaustive investigation
since the Kennedy assassination. And verily I say unto thee: Any
outfit that can prove Nixon was innocent of Watergate will have no
difficulty of proving Oswald was solely guilty of whacking Jack.
There wasn't a single FBI agent who didn't know what Hoover's marching
orders were. Well, there was only one order: get Oswald. These Boys in
the Bureau were ambitious, career wise, and patriotic, weren't they?
Who among them would dare defy the Grand Drag Queen, particularly in
those days?
I wonder whether you're not perhaps too "patriotic" to understand
that.
I wonder also whether you also believed we'd find WMD's in Iraq;
whether you believed it'd be a cake walk; take our Marines but 6 wks,
or so; cost "only' $70 billion, be paid for with Iraq's Black Gold;
and I wonder if, like true "patriots," you also believed that our
invasion would lead to democracy dominoes standing up all over the
Middle East.
And I wonder if you agree that General Petraeus's optimism is
justified. If so, then we agree, if only on the latter. For I happen
to believe that Petraeus' optimism is just as justified as General
Westmorland's was in the LBJ Admininstration.
The only problem was we weren't willing to do what had to be done to
win in S.E. Asia. Whereas we killed 3 million of them, we "needed" to
kill, say, 10 or 12 million of them to really, really prove we cherish
freedom and human rights and democracy and that we hated evil. Hell, a
few, measly nukes would have turned the tide in favor of us, the good
guys.
While reliable estimates are hard to come by and so we don't know how
much more there is to be done in Iraq, I nevertheless believe the same
requirement applies to Iraq as did Vietnam. Our having only killed,
say, 600,000++ ragheads (taking Lancet's numbers at face value), we've
got another 9 or 10 million to go to prove how much we love freedom
and human rights and democracy and how we absolutely will NOT tolerate
evil.
That Iraq happens to have gobs of oil is just coincidental; we'd be
there to save Iraq even if its major export were asparagus. For
America the Beautiful, America the Last, Best Hope for Mankind, has
no, I repeat, NO, interest in Iraq's oil. We'll leave that for our God-
fearing, America-loving, American-owned oil companies. They deserve
it!
So, in the words of a particularly eloquent, and thoroughly honest
president, "Fool me once and, er, ahem, shame on you; fool me twice
and ... and, well, er, ahem, you can't be fooled again."
Gary
David Von Pein
LOL. Oh sure. And what a FOOL Hoover would have been to give such an
idiotic order.
"Get Oswald", in actuality, is the VERY LAST THING that J. Edgar would
have ordered.
Why?
Because WHY would Hoover want Oswald blamed (falsely, mind you, per
you kooks!) for JFK's murder when such a thing could only result in a
very black eye to Hoover's beloved Bureau.
Why?
Because, of course, the FBI was aware of Oswald's whereabouts in
Dallas leading up to 11/22. They should have kept a better eye on this
bird, right?
So why would Hoover bend over backwards TO FRAME A MAN THAT, IF PROVEN
GUILTY, WOULD ONLY SERVE TO HARM HIS BUREAU'S CREDIBILITY.
Hoover should have been doing exactly the OPPOSITE....i.e., he should
have been trying desperately to EXPOSE the "real killers" of Kennedy.
Not framing an INNOCENT Oswald, whom the FBI failed to warn anybody
else about.
Gary A
Wtih this sort of crackpot theorizing, VP, you could "prove" that
Hoover would never, ever have let Oswald's note be destroyed, because
it might have hurt the reputation of his beloved Bureau if word had
gotten out.
Similarly, Hoover would NEVER have allowed innocent men to go to
prison on a murder charge to protect the guilty mafiosi murderer, for
the same reason - if word would have leaked his reputation and that of
his Bureau would have been demolsihed.
But we know he did that, don't we?
And by your sort of bass-ackwards logic, VP, you can "prove" that
Hoover did none of the idiotic, criminal things we know that he did,
because he would have been too keen to protect his reputation and that
of his precious Bureau to have ever done such things! Perfectly
circular flapdoodle,VP. You should send it to The Onion, really!
I mean, surely you jest, no? If not, it would appear that you have no
idea what it really means to be a crook and a thug like Hoover; what
powerful, corrupt men really do.When they have the power, they don't
worry about any tarnish to their reputations, for they can destroy
anyone who threatens it, and that's why Hoover kept his dreaded,
secret files.
Hoover would have done as he damn well pleased in the JFK case, as he
usually did in all cases, because he'd had lots and lots and lots of
practice forcing conclusions to come out the way he preferred. Why
otherwise is his reputation such a shambles today? Why otherwise did
he keep his secret blackmail files, if he kept busy doing the Right
Thing to protect his own precious reputation?
VP, you'll believe just about anything, so long as it's wrapped in the
Red, White and Blue. And in your mind, Hoover comes wrapped that way,
so you believe him.
Your sweet "patriotism" is a thing of wonder, it is. Almost brings a
tear to the eye, it does.
Gary
David Von Pein
If I believed everything that came out of his mouth, I'd therefore
today be believing that CE399 had rolled out of JFK's head at Parkland
and onto a stretcher....now wouldn't I?
David Von Pein
No, not at all.
I'm not saying Hoover was any Saint. Far from it. He was, indeed, by
all accounts, a kook. And probably twisted the law many times in
various areas.
But we're talking about the murder of THE PRESIDENT here. And about
Hoover's Bureau having ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE of the murderer's existence
in the very city in which JFK was murdered.
I think Hoover might have had just a tad MORE interest in protecting
his Bureau from being derelict in their duties when it comes to THAT
type of a BOMBSHELL of a story, which could lead to newspaper
headlines like this one:
"HOOVER'S BOYS KNEW OSWALD WAS IN TOWN, BUT DID NOTHING TO STOP
ASSASSINATION!"
And with that potential headline possibly swirling around in J.
Edgar's head, don't you think it would have been a little bit on the
CRAZY side for him to want to FRAME AN **INNOCENT** LEE HARVEY OSWALD?
garag...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Gary:
>
> The obvious conclusion Gary is your usual obfuscation. Much earlier on in
> this rather mind numbing debate you chided me for posting my rebuttal on
> my website and effectively stated if I truly had the strength of my
> convictions I would fire off a letter to the editor of AOAS, and explain
> to everyone here why (if they opted not to publish) the reasons for that
> decision.
>
> I followed your advice, and the letter will be published. In fact Dr.
> Efron was kind enough to relax the journal's guidelines of 400 words, and
> gave me an expanded 600 word window.
>
> Of course Spiegelman, Tobin et al will be afforded the opportunity to
> respond, and rightly so.
>
> I am also working on a complete paper comparing R/G with T/S, which Brad
> Efron has indicated I should also submit.
>
> So, I fail (as usual) to see exactly what you are carping about.
>
> John F
John,
Before I forget, have a nice day yourself.
I'm delighted you've fired off a letter and that they're intending to
publish it. If Spiegelman, Tobin et all respond, it'll be interesting
to see the exchange.
But I asked you a bit more than just about the letter, didn't I? Or,
did you, like Rahn and Sturdivan, "forget?"
Let me help you out. I asked:
And, if it wouldn't be too much to ask, would you please explain how
the NAS report, which you've read, right?, is consistent with the
statistical claims Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan have made? For there are
those who are familiar with NAS who incline toward the view that NO
statistical interpretation is possible and that no probabilistic
claims can be made. If they're wrong, can you explain why?
In other words, can NAA really establish the number of rounds fired?
If not, what does that mean, John?
And while you're at it, are Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan also right that,
with respect to the antimony composition, Mannlicher Carcano bullets
are distinctly different than other jacketed ammunition? As you know,
Randich and Grant say they're wrong about that, and Randich, at least,
is a bona fide metallurgist, and Pat Grant knew Guinn as a grad
student at UC, Irvine and respects Guinn, even though he says Guinn
was wrong about the metallurgy of MC rounds.
As you've seen, I've asked Rahn this question many times and he's
dodged it, over and over and over again. Of course I expect he'd argue
that no significance should be placed on his refusal to answer this
simple query. But of course, it's impossible not
to.
So, let me ask you: Will you be dodging the question, too? If not,
I'll just keep it in my file and repost it in the off chance you
forget to answer. On the other hand, if you say flatly that you
absolutely will not answer this question, no matter what, then I hope
you won't mind my drawing the obvious conclusion.
Have a blessed day, John!
Gary
PS I'm cross posting this to alt.conspiracy.jfk, for reasons that are
obvious to ALMOST everyone.
> John,
>
> Pray tell: Will your letter will be PUBLISHED in full and without
> edits?
>
> Might, in other words, you have confused that your letter was accepted
> with the notion it will be published in full and with no response by
> Spiegelman, Tobin et al?
>
> And, if it wouldn't be too much to ask, would you please explain how
> the NAS report, which you've read, right?, is consistent with the
> statistical claims Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan have made? For there are
> those who are familiar with NAS who incline toward the view that NO
> statistical interpretation is possible and that no probabilistic
> claims can be made. If they're wrong, can you explain why?
>
> In other words, can NAA really establish the number of rounds fired?
> If not, what does that mean, John?
>
> And while you're at it, are Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan also right that,
> with respect to the antimony composition, Mannlicher Carcano bullets
> are distinctly different than other jacketed ammunition? As you know,
> Randich and Grant say they're wrong about that, and Randich, at least,
> is a bona fide metallurgist, and Pat Grant knew Guinn as a grad
> student at UC, Irvine and respects Guinn, even though he says Guinn
> was wrong about the metallurgy of MC rounds.
>
> As you've seen, I've asked Rahn this question many times and he's
> dodged it, over and over and over again. Of course I expect he'd argue
> that no significance should be placed on his refusal to answer this
> simple query. But of course, it's impossible not to.
>
> So, let me ask you: Will you be dodging the question, too? If not,
> I'll just keep it in my file and repost it in the off chance you
> forget to answer. On the other hand, if you say flatly that you
> absolutely will not answer this question, no matter what, then I hope
> you won't mind my drawing the obvious conclusion.
>
> Gary
>
> > "garyNOS...@gmail.com" <garagui...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1189237708.2...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 7, 7:06 am, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Gary:
>
> > > I've already demonstrated the Spiegelman, Tobin et als 3 or more bullet,
> > > second gunman statement is false. That speaks volumes for their
> > > credibility.
>
> > > John F.
>
> > Right, John!
>
> > And of course the scientific community has fallen at your feet, hasn't
> > it?
>
> > And your peer-reviewed "refutation" was published, exactly, where?
>
> > Was it, perhaps, published by the same university that granted you
> > your Ph.D.? ; ~ }
>
> > You're just too much, John!
>
> > Gary
>
> > > "garyNOS...@gmail.com" <garagui...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1189111939....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > John Fiorentino wrote:
> > > > Tom:
>
> > > > Tom says: "...and the data
> > > > treatment has been found to be essentially a baseless method."
>
> > > > Who said that Tom?
>
> > > > John F.
>
> > > If you're asking who said NAA in the JFK case is a "baseless method,"
> > > while "baseless method" wouldn't be my choice of describing how it's
> > > been
> > > invalidated, NAA in the Kennedy case has been proven invalid
> > > nonetheless.
>
> > > Here's my introduction to Pat Grant's rejoinder to Ken Rahn, from Mary
> > > Ferrell's website:
>
> > > Commentary on Dr. Ken Rahn's Work on the JFK Assassination
> > > Investigation
>
> > > by Patrick M. Grant
>
> > > Introduction by Gary Aguilar. MD
>
> > > In 2004 longstanding Warren Commission supporters, Ken Rahn, Ph.D. and
> > > Mr. Larry Sturidvan, published two back-to-back articles in the
> > > scientific literature hailing a sophisticated scientific technique,
> > > neutron activation analysis (NAA), as the "Rosetta Stone" of the JFK
> > > assassination. They said that NAA offered irrefutable evidence that
> > > Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, had killed JFK. [1] For since NAA could
> > > provide a "fingerprint" consisting of the precise quanta of trace
> > > elements in the bullet fragments recovered from the crime, NAA, they
> > > said, could prove that all the fragments traced directly to but two
> > > bullets fired from Oswald's rifle.
>
> > > Their reports were an elaboration of work first done by Vincent Guinn
> > > for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s.
> > > Echoing Guinn's sweeping conclusions about Kennedy's recovered bullet
> > > evidence, they claimed, "that every fragment recovered is traceable to
> > > OSWALD's (sic) rifle, that OSWALD's rifle was actually fired that day
> > > (it was not a plant), and that none of the fragments or cartridge
> > > cases were planted." [2] Although doubts about the statistics used in
> > > the Guinn-Rahn-Sturdivan interpretation were first raised by Stanford
> > > Linear Accelerator's Art Snyder, Ph.D. in Skeptic Magazine in 1998,
> > > [3] the Rahn-Sturdivan papers stimulated interest in the subject of
> > > NAA. The result is that two papers have since been published in the
> > > scientific press debunking Guinn-Rahn-Sturdivan. [4]
>
> > > The first, and perhaps most devastating, critique was a paper, Proper
> > > Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
> > > Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives, published in the Journal
> > > of Forensic Science by Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Pat Grant, Ph.D., two
> > > Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists. [5] Unlike Rahn and Sturdivan, who
> > > are longstanding Warren Commission supporters, Randich and Grant are
> > > completely agnostic on the question of conspiracy. Their critique is
> > > manifold, but a key element of it is that Rahn and Sturdivan (and
> > > Guinn before them) misunderstood, and so misinterpreted, basic bullet
> > > metallurgy. In addition, as first suggested by Art Snyder, [6] Guinn,
> > > Rahn and Sturdivan used a flawed statistical model.
>
> > > It was not long after Randich and Grant published that Rahn responded,
> > > however not in the time-honored, scientific manner, with a letter to
> > > the editor of the Journal of Forensic Science. Rahn instead put out a
> > > rebuttal on his personal website. [7] Apprised of Rahn's
> > > unconventional response, Erik Randich declined to comment. Pat Grant,
> > > however, did respond, as per the following, making clear why, despite
> > > Ken Rahn's claims to the contrary, understanding metallurgy does
> > > matter.
>
> > > [1] Rahn, KA, Sturdivan, LM. Neutron activation and the JFK
> > > assassinaton - Part I. Data and interpretation Journal of
> > > Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 205-213.
> > > Sturdivan. LM, Rahn, KA. Neutron activation and the JFK assassination
> > > - Part II. Extended benefits. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
> > > Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 215-222.
> > > [2] Ibid.
> > > [3] Snyder A, Snyder M. Case Still Open - Skepticism and the
> > > Assassination of JFK. Skeptic Magazine, Vol. 6, #4, 1998.
> > > [4] Erik Randich,1 Ph.D. and Patrick M. Grant,2 Ph.D. Proper
> > > Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from
> > > Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives. Journal of Forensic
> > > Sciences, July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4. doi:10.1111/j.
> > > 1556-4029.2006.00165.x. Available online
> > > at:http://www.blackwell-synergy.com.
> > > Texas A&M Statistician Probes Bullet Evidence in JFK Assassination -
> > > Team Calls for Reanalysis of "Fundamentally Flawed" Evidence Ruling
> > > Out a Second Shooter." On-line
> > > at:http://www.science.tamu.edu/articles/550/
> > > [5] Ibid.
> > > [6] Snyder A, Snyder M. (see footnote 3)
> > > [7] Ken Rahn, Review of Randich and Grant's article on the NAA. On-
> > > line at:http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html.
>
> > > And here's the first part of Grant's riposte:
>
> > > Preliminary Remarks
>
> > > Normally, when a concerned scientist has issues with a published work,
> > > he or she will submit a letter of protest, criticism, or alternate
> > > viewpoint to the journal in which publication occurred. That letter
> > > will then be evaluated by the journal editor, perhaps given to other
> > > technical staff for opinions of appropriateness, and, if published,
> > > often answered or rebutted in the same issue by an accompanying letter
> > > from the original authors. The protest letter is usually constrained
> > > by the journal to be succinct, focused, and deal with valid technical
> > > concerns, and such published communications are considered to be on a
> > > reasonable scientific footing. The original authors may or may not
> > > sway the interested reader with their subsequent response.
>
> > > The narrative by Dr. Rahn in his recent Internet posting does not fall
> > > into such a
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Gary A
Would Hoover have sent innocent men to jail on a murder rap to protect
the mafiosi murderer?
Well, he did that, didn't he? And you expect me to believe there are
limits to what else he might have done?
Gary
Gary A
You're about as "patriotic" as they come, and about as ignorant of
history as they come, too.
I can't do much about the former, but here's some help with the
latter.
Gary
By phone, Thursday, 5/30/02: George Herring: (Professor, History, U.
Kentucky, 859-373-...): McNamara didn't tell all he knew to Congress
in stumping for the G. of T. Resolution.
tragedy
By phone, Thursday, 5/30/02: Ed Moise: (Professor at Clemson, So.
Carolina. Ph. - 864-656-3153): McN not entirely honest. There are
David Von Pein
boob like him could have risen to be Top Dog of the USA's chief
investigative organization without some help!
Oswald, Ferrie, Banister, and Russo obviously got Hoover that job! He
was planted there!
Of course, LHO wasn't even a gleam in his daddy's eye yet...but that's
beside the point. If CTers can speculate....so can I.
Gary A
Your "speculations" are apparently faith-based, for they run along the
lines of: We can trust Hoover - on JFK, at least.
Skeptics acknowledge Hoover's dreadful history and we draw the obvious
conclusion: One should NEVER trust Hoover, whether on JFK or on the
Mafia or anything else.
David Von Pein
I'll ask yet again....WHERE did you get this detailed "Copper PPM"
data? Who does it come from? Where does it come from?
You sure as heck didn't get it from any "new" examination of CE399 and
the wrist fragment done by Tobin, et al, in 2007.
>>> "These are the published HSCA numbers that Guinn used back in the late seventies." <<<
Published where? Such detailed "Copper PPM" data is not to be found
anywhere within Dr. Vincent Guinn's HSCA testimony. (I just checked
for the words "Nine Hundred" and the number "900", and the number "58"
and the words "fifty-eight" within his lengthy testimony, and there's
not a single mention of "900 Copper PPM", or anything similar, re. any
piece of evidence he examined.)
So, that means it must be in a supporting HSCA volume, right?
Can you please tell me what volume it's in and what page number it's
on? I'd like to see it in "HSCA print".
Plus: If you're correct and this "900 PPM" data comes from GUINN
himself and HIS own data and research re. CE399 & the wrist
fragment....doesn't it seem very, very odd to you that Guinn would
ALSO say that CE399 and that wrist fragment almost certainly DID come
from the very same bullet (even WITH the wide variation in copper
between them)?
Let me guess....Vincent P. Guinn is a "boob" and he didn't know his
copper from his anal cavity...right?
Another funny side note re. Guinn and the CTer I'm arguing with
here......
In a previous post at IMDb.com, Mr. "Akwilks" confirmed for me his
personal belief that Vincent P. Guinn was, indeed, a total
"boob"....and yet guess who Akwilks is RELYING ON with respect to the
"Copper PPM" data that he says proves conspiracy? ---
Yep. Vincent "Boob" Guinn.
Nice, huh?
Guinn's a complete boob (per The Ak-man)...and yet this same "boob"
can be fully relied on with respect to the PPM numbers.
Typical CTer approach too. They do the same thing with respect to the
WC and WR. The CTers think the whole Report should be thrown in the
fire; and yet those same CTers TRUST many sections within that train
wreck they call the Warren Report.
Kooky, huh?
{Here's the HSCA document re. the bullet metal compositions, which was
kindly posted by the CTer in question:}
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0271b.htm
Thanks you, Akwilks, for the HSCA PPM chart.
Now, if you could just figure out why a Professor of Chemistry like
Vincent Guinn (who was working with those numbers you posted) would
STILL GO ON PUBLIC RECORD and say that CE399 and CE842 were almost
certainly from the very SAME bullet (even with wide variations in the
copper distribution throughout the two specimens).....you'd be able to
write a book.
So....why WAS Dr. Guinn still of the very, very FIRM opinion that 399
and 842 could be almost certainly linked to the same bullet?
Obviously, via these numbers, Dr. Guinn is of the firm opinion that
wide variations in copper distribution in bullets are not a major
criteria for eliminating certain samples as coming from the same
bullet (or batch of lead).
>>> "I am saying the man {Evil Dr. Guinn} took the numbers he wanted, ignored the ones that disproved him, and basically LIED about the results, or, is so deluded and unable to admit error and incompetence that he fudged them." <<<
And yet the evil doctor still produced the "58" vs. "900+"
differential in Copper PPM in the chart/table you posted for all to
see and evaluate later on.
Or was Guinn AGAINST the HSCA publishing that table in Volume 1 of
their supporting volumes? Didn't he know that wise men like you and
others would come along and PROVE THAT GUINN WAS A BOOB and didn't
know what the hell he--a CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR--was talking about?!
You can say the numbers mean certain things if you want....and you can
say that CE399 and CE842 cannot possibly be from the same
bullet....but you cannot prove that Guinn's original analysis re. the
5 specimens he examined are from MORE THAN JUST TWO BULLETS.
You think you can prove it. But you can't.
And, once again, that Razor of Occam's and average, ordinary common
sense should come into play at some point here.....
And both of those things say that CTers are nuts re. the bullets, with
common sense ALONE dictating the high likelihood that at least ONE
fragment from one of those "other bullets" CTers believe were spraying
the car in 1963 would have been big enough to test by conventional
means, so as to compare it with Oswald's rifle, so as to EXCLUDE
Oswald's rifle as the weapon that fired that bullet.
But, instead, we're left with THREE Oswald bullets or fragments big
enough to test via conventional means...and various fragments too tiny
for such tests.
WHAT ARE THE ODDS? (Especially within a FIVE-bullet scenario that was
theorized earlier!)
Get a brain. And then plant some ordinary common sense inside it.
It'll go a long way.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d0bc5be11042a291
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a1f839000eb145ad
David Von Pein
Analysis from Rhode Island Professor Kenneth A. Rahn (full version of
Rahn's comments linked below):
"Guinn's data, which is the most representative set available for WCC/
MC bullets, show that the probability of an accidental match to one of
the two groups of fragments from the assassination (i.e., a fragment
from another shooter) is 2% to 3% at best, and orders of magnitude
less under more-expected circumstances (i.e., the other shooters using
some other kind of lead).
"In other words, Kennedy and Connally were hit by two and only two
bullets, both fired from Oswald's rifle. If there were other shooters,
they missed and left no trace of themselves.
"The question about what a given metallurgist thinks about these
documented data is a side issue at best. The data speak for
themselves, if only people are willing to listen. I hope this can
clear up the subject for reasonable people here." -- Kenneth A. Rahn,
Ph.D.; 09/23/2007
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a890c80e071004a
===========================
RELATED ARTICLE:
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/Spiegelman.html
===========================
bigdog
wrote:
> Mr. Pein does a good job of trying to salvage the NAA wreckage of
> Guinn, Rahn, Sturdivan, and by citation, Vince Bugliosi.
> Unfortunately, the peer-reviewed scientific literature has rendered
> its verdict and NAA lies in a heap. The reasons are pretty obvious and
> I wrote about them in an essay that appears in the May, 2007 blog ofwww.reclaiminghistory.organd is published in full on the Mary Ferrell
> site.
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi...
>
> What follows appears on that site, but without the footnotes. Here is
> a version with the footnotes.
>
> Is Vincent Bugliosi Right that Neutron Activation Analysis Proves
> Oswald's Guilt?
> by Gary L. Aguilar
>
> 5/20/07
>
> In his book, "Reclaiming History," author Vincent Bugliosi highlights
> the dubious, if long-held, claim that bullet evidence in the Kennedy
> case scientifically establishes Oswald's guilt to a high degree of
> certainty. The proof, he says, consists of two related elements that
> show that only two bullets from Oswald's rifle struck anyone in JFK's
> motorcade on November 22nd.
>
> First, both the nearly whole bullet that was recovered on a stretcher
> at the hospital where JFK and Governor John Connally were treated, as
> well as both of the other large bullet fragments recovered from JFK's
> limousine (consisting of the copper jacket and the lead core of a
> single bullet) were shown to have been fired from Oswald's Mannlicher
> Carcano, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. Second, a
> sophisticated analytical test, neutron activation analysis, proves
> that all the smaller, recovered bullet fragments were separated from
> the larger specimens. Thus, only two bullets struck, both from
> Oswald's weapon.
>
> As inescapable as the logic behind the theory may seem, and Bugliosi
> does an admirable job of making it seem inescapable, two recent
> reports in the technical/scientific literature have shot holes through
> it. The second debunking was published six months after Bugliosi
> claims to have stopped his inquiry and so he can't be faulted for not
> addressing it. But Bugliosi was fully aware of the first article,
> which, by itself, posed fatal problems which he glossed over. The
> manner in which Bugliosi dealt with this important evidence tells us
> much about his general approach to the subject of the Kennedy
> assassination. And to understand that, some background is in order.
>
> That the larger pieces came from bullets shot through Oswald's rifle
> seems clear by the still-visible rifling marks. But in the wake of the
> new studies what is now not clear is that NAA can prove that all the
> small fragments are related to either one or the other of the two
> identifiable, large fragments.
>
> First elaborated before the House Select Committee on Assassination's
> (HSCA) reinvestigation of Kennedy's murder in 1977, NAA is a
> sophisticated technique that purports to identify bullets by measuring
> the miniscule levels of "impurities" that are commonly present in
> bullet lead. Typically the quantities of antimony (Sb), silver (Ag)
> and copper (Cu) are assayed, but other trace components could be used
> just as well. The HSCA called upon Vincent Guinn, the University of
> California-Irvine, NAA expert. He put JFK's bullet evidence to the
> test and, against all expectations, reported a match in antimony
> levels that seemed to inextricably tie Oswald to the crime.
>
> But as Guinn explained it, NAA only proved useful in the Kennedy case
> because of a feature that was unique to the Mannlicher Carcano bullets
> used in Oswald's rifle.
>
> In stark contrast with the lead used in non-MCC bullets, which, bullet-
> to-bullet, had near identical levels of measurable Sb, the lead in
> Oswald's bullets had varying amounts. In the fragments recovered in
> the JFK case, Guinn found the telltale sign of Oswald's ammo: varying
> quanta of Sb.
> But Guinn said that there was a key additional feature that helped him
> reach his conclusions. With Oswald's ammo the levels of trace elements
> found in fragments taken from a given bullet remained constant, but
> were different from the levels found in other bullets. Thus, by NAA,
> fragments from one bullet would be traceable to the bullet of origin
> and could be distinguished from all others, even those picked out of a
> single box of twenty cartridges.
>
> Bugliosi offered a remarkably clear explanation of Guinn's thesis:
>
> "When subjected to NAA by Dr. Guinn, all five of the specimens
> produced a profile highly characteristic of the Western Cartridge
> Company's Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition. Even more interesting, the
> results fell into two distinct groups. Of the five samples, two had a
> concentration of antimony of about 800 parts per million, and three
> had a concentration of antimony of around 600 parts per million. This
> could mean only one thing: all five specimens had come from just two
> bullets. 'There is no evidence for three bullets, four bullets, or
> anything more than two, but there is clear evidence there are two,'
> Guinn told the HSCA.
>
> "Guinn concluded that the large fragment found in the limousine, the
> smaller fragments found on the rug of the limousine, and the fragments
> recovered from Kennedy's brain were all from one bullet.
>
> "His most important conclusion by far, however, scientifically
> defeating the notion that the bullet found on [Governor John]
> Connally's stretcher had been planted, was that the elemental
> composition and concentration of trace elements of the three bullet
> fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist matched those of a
> second bullet, the stretcher bullet. The stretcher bullet, then, had
> to be the one that struck Connally ... ."
>
> In further support of Guinn's conclusions, Bugliosi cited two related
> papers published by the longstanding Warren Commission supporters, Ken
> Rahn, Ph.D. and Larry Sturdivan. The authors endorsed Guinn's
> statistical analysis as well as Guinn's conclusion that, as Bugliosi
> put it, "unlike other manufactured bullets, which he (Guinn) found to
> have a homogeneous elemental composition even when they came from the
> same batch or source, Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition manufactured by
> the Western Cartridge Company (CE 399 and the bullet fragments in the
> Kennedy case) (sic) had different elemental compositions (particularly
> in antimony content) from bullet to bullet within the same box
> (normally consisting of twenty rounds) (sic) of ammunition. (1 HSCA
> 494-495)."
>
> But almost immediately, there were doubts about the statistical
> analysis. Then, something unexpected happened. Two scientists from
> Lawrence Livermore Laboratory who were avowedly agnostic on the
> conspiracy question, Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Pat Grant, Ph.D.,
> published a paper in the Journal of Forensic Science calling both
> Guinn's original report and the two papers by Rahn and Sturdivan into
> serious question.
>
> One of Randich and Grant's objections was that, although Guinn worked
> in good faith, he didn't understand elemental bullet metallurgy, which
> was Randich's area of expertise. (Nor, they made clear, did Rahn or
> Sturdivan.) Guinn was wrong that Mannlicher Carcano bullets were
> unique because the trace levels of component Sb varied. The levels of
> antimony in MCC bullets do vary, they said. But so do Sb levels in
> many bullets that, like MCC shells, are jacketed. It is the non-
> jacketed bullets that have consistent levels of trace components. And
> the levels are controlled for a very good reason.
>
> For while with jacketed bullets it is the jacket that provides the
> hardness and not the lead inside the jacket, in non-jacketed bullets
> the hardness of a bullet is determined by how much antimony is mixed
> into the lead. To strictly control bullet hardness, an important
> quality control issue, manufacturers strictly control the quanta of
> antimony used in the lead of non-jacketed ammo. But with jacketed
> bullets, Sb levels vary because no effort is expended to control
> antimony as it has no bearing on the bullet's hardness.
>
> As it happens, the non-MCC bullets Guinn used in his comparison tests
> were non-jacketed, and so, bullet to bullet, had homogenous Sb levels.
> Imagining that his test samples were typical of the universe of all
> non-MCC shells, Guinn drew the wrong conclusions. The varying Sb
> levels he found in JFK's fragments did not prove they had come from
> MCC shells; they could have come from many kinds of jacketed rounds.
>
> Randich and Grant also disproved another, key Guinn contention: that
> there is little variation in Sb levels within a single bullet. Using
> exquisite micrographs showing MCC bullets cut in cross section,
> Randich and Grant demonstrated that MCC bullet lead exhibits a
> "cystalline" type structure, with Sb tending to "microsegregate"
> around crystals of lead. The crystals are large enough that a sample
> taken from one portion of a bullet might easily have an Sb level one
> or two orders of magnitude higher or lower than one taken from another
> portion of the same bullet. Guinn found Sb matches within the MCC
> bullets he tested because he measured bits taken from only a very
> small portion of his test bullets, which said nothing about what he
> would have found had he sampled an entirely different area of the
> bullet. Thus, fragments with similar antimony levels could have come
> from one bullet, or more than one, and those with different antimony
> levels could have come from but a single bullet.
>
> Finally, Randich and Grant analyzed the statistical model Guinn
> presented to the HSCA. They determined that the number of samples he
> had evaluated and the number of tests he performed were inadequate to
> draw the sweeping statistical conclusions Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan
> had drawn.
>
> In May 2007, a second paper appeared reporting on a chemical, forensic
> and statistical analysis of bullets derived from the same batch as
> those supposedly used by Oswald. The authors, Cliff Spiegelman,
> professor of statistics at Texas A&M and an expert in bullet lead
> analysis, William A. Tobin, the FBI's former Chief Forensic
> Metallurgist, William D. James,
> ...
>
> read more »
As is typical with most arguments coming from the CT camp, at best
Gary has established a theoretical possibility that the bullet
fragments that could not be ballistically matched to Oswald's rifle
could have come from another weapon. Theoretical alternative
possibilities is what CTs hang their hat on since the most probable
explaination for any piece of evidence ALWAYS points to Oswald as the
killer. Giving Gary the benefit of the doubt here, we can say there is
only a 99% probability the smaller fragments came from a different
bullet than the larger, ballistically matched fragment. But that is
good enough if you are a CTer. If they can establish even a 1% chance
that a piece of evidence does not incriminate Oswald, they consider
that a win. Given the weakness of their position, it is understandable
why they cling to that 1%.
ak
A few questions:
1. The Connally wrist fragment has I believe 8.1 PPM of Aluminum,
yet
CE 399 has 0.000 PPM of Aluminum - "None Detected". This would seem
to indicate that CE 399 was made in a metal melt that had no Aluminum
present, while the wrist fragment came from a bullet made from a melt
that contained Aluminum. How can we reasonably say that the wrist
fragment came from that CE 399?
2. CE 399 and the wrist fragment also show a huge variation in
Copper
PPM - 994 vs. 58. There are also large differences in Sodium and
Chlorine. Don't these facts also point to this fragment NOT coming
from the CE 399 bullet?
3. Numerous courts around the country have declared the old FBI/
Guinn
method of bullet analysis to be junk science and are reversing
convictions obtained by its use. Even the FBI itself has dropped the
method. Why should we not also question the use of this discredited
method by Guinn on the JFK case?
David Von Pein
Prof. Kenneth Rahn (who has studied this technical stuff re. the
bullets a lot longer and deeper than I have, and no doubt longer than
Mr. "Akwilks" too, has already answered "Ak's" inquiry....right here:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8bb80d1d95ca2d58
It's certainly not Ken's fault (or any LNer's) that Ak doesn't care
too much for the explanation.
Bottom line is still this: A chemist who was called in to deeply
evaluate the bullet evidence (Dr. Vincent P. Guinn) has given his
detailed analysis on the 5 bullet specimens he examined and said they
are very, very likely from ONLY TWO BULLETS (both, of course, which
HAD to be from Oswald's rifle, since 2 of those 5 specimens are big
enough to prove that fact via other non-NAA means).
Given that above NON-NAA-RELATED FACT all by itself, the chances that
any of the OTHER three small fragments came from a non-Oswald weapon
are very small indeed.
But try telling that to someone who seemingly WANTS extra guns pointed
at JFK on November 22nd. It's a wasted effort. Just like this common-
sense post will be wasted on CTers who cannot get past that chaff they
embrace in order to see the wheat field which is located just beyond
it.
aeffects
"deeply evaluate...?" LMFAO! Von Pein er, Reitzes you're over-the-top,
pard....
Ben Holmes
says...
Is this the same Dr. Vincent P. Guinn who lied to the HSCA?
aeffects
> In article <1190846396.149876.183...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
that be the man.... lmao!
David Von Pein
No. Not really. I couldn't care less about such things, in fact.
Bottom line (again)....<sigh>:
NAA isn't even really needed to solve the "bullet debate". As I said
before....the sheer odds of the other THREE SMALL BULLET SPECIMENS
that Guinn examined being from some other non-Oswald bullets (when we
know that 40%--2 out of 5--ARE from TWO distinct and different bullets
that came out of Lee Harvey Oswald's MC rifle "to the exclusion") are
incredibly-small odds indeed.
If you want to think that some OTHER non-C2766 gun fired bullets that
magically all turned to teeny-tiny fragments everywhere, without a
SINGLE particle of those non-Oz bullets turning up anyplace that were
big enough to be tested via traditional non-NAA means in order to
EXCLUDE Oz's rifle from the mix....then go right ahead and roll those
dice and see if you can beat those amazingly-low odds.
Vegas anybody?!