11
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: 10 Reasons to Believe That Oswald Was Innocent
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 12:23:07 PM »Actually, fragments from the brain were compared to the fragments found inside the limo and fragments from JBC's wrist were compared to CE399, both by the FBI in 1964 and by Dr. Vincent Guinn for the HSCA in 1977. Ken Rahn wrote an excellent article about it. Rather than put my own spin on what those tests did or didn't prove, I'll post the article and everyone can decide for themselves.
https://kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_JFK_assassination.html
Oh my goodness. Once again you are decades behind the information curve. How, just how, can you not know that Guinn's 1977 NAA claims were refuted 20 years ago? How did you miss this news?
Guinn's NAA claims were first refuted in 2006 by two scientists, Erik Randich and Patrick Grant, in an article published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. Several more scientists refuted Guinn's NAA claims the following year in an article published in The Annals of Applied Statistics.
Here are links to their articles:
"Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?" (Spiegelman, Tobin, James, Sheather, Wexler, and Roundhill) (2007)
https://share.google/dfrci1tNxtQrbGHTz
"Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives" (Randich and Grant) (2006)
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc890664/m2/1/high_res_d/900118.pdf
Summary of Randich and Grant's article in the Journal of Forensic Sciences (2006)
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict
I quote from the Spiegelman-Tobin-James-Sheather-Wexler-Roundhill article:
Additionally, we show that one of the ten test bullets is considered a match to one or more assassination fragments. This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets."
In this paper we show that evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed. This paper discusses new compositional analyses of bullets reportedly to have been derived from the same batch as those used in the assassination. The new analyses show that the bullet fragments involved in the assassination are not nearly as rare as previously reported.
We believe that there is no scientific basis from the fragment matching performed by Dr. Guinn to conclude that only two bullets were the sources of the assassination fragments.
FYI, a little bit about the scientists who debunked Guinn's NAA claims:
-- W. M. Tobin was a principal forensic engineer with Forensic Engineering International.
-- Clifford Spiegelman was a professor of statistics at Texas A&M University and a leader in statistical and environmental forensics.
-- Simon Sheather headed the Department of Statistics at Texas A&M and won the American Statistical Association's Statistics in Chemistry Award, and is now a visiting professor of statistics at the University of Kentucky.
-- William D. James was a professor of chemical analysis at Texas A&M University and published several studies on NAA testing in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
-- D. M. Roundhill was a chemist with Chemical Consulting and published several articles on chemistry in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
-- Erik Randich at the time was a forensics consultant and metallurgist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
-- Patrick Grant is an analytical chemist who has been a staff member at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory since 1983, has authored or coauthored more than 120 peer-reviewed scientific publications, and has been a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences since 1999 and a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Forensic Sciences since 2003.
Recent Posts
