Another of MTG's long winded novellas in which he tries to make up for in quantity what his posts lack in quality. I will give a Cliff Notes response, addressing just the silliest of the arguments he has made.

He starts off by disparaging my choice of McAdams' assassination witness page as a source for witness testimony. He insinuates, without actually saying, that the McAdams webpage is not a reliable source. That's what internet trolls do. They always leave themselves an escape hatch so they can deny they actually said what they were clearly suggesting.

Then he goes on to suggest that my only source of knowledge of the JFKA is McAdams website. This ignores the fact I was regularly kicking his a$$ on the old Prodigy system 35 years ago, long before I ever heard of John McAdams. He was spewing the same crap back then that he is now and it hasn't improved with age. His arguments were clay pigeons then and are clay pigeons now. There isn't much sport in shooting them down.

Then he denies saying the bullet fragments couldn't be matched to Oswald's rifle by saying he was talking about the NAA matching. Then, a few minutes later he quotes this statement:
"The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed"[/url] and with the executive summary statementThe matching of bullets to guns is subjective, and courts are starting to question it because of testimony from scientific experts."

Ballistic matching has long been accepted by our courts as a valid method of determining whether a particular bullet came from a particular firearm and remains so to this day. It is considered as reliable as fingerprint evidence. Even if his dubious claim that this sort of matching is not 100% definitive were true, it would be the most remarkable of coincidences if the markings on the limo fragments matched the test bullets if they had not been fired by the same weapon, just as it would be a remarkable coincidence if the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle and the fibers found in the rifle bag would match Oswald's shirt and rifle blanket if they had come from a different source.

Then he insinuates, without saying, that the Guinn's NAA testing on bullet fragments recovered from the limo, JFK, JBC as well as CE399 did not produce a match. In fact the NAA testing showed they did match. If anything has changed, it is that like fiber matching, NAA testing is not 100% conclusive that the matched items came from the same source. As with the fiber evidence, it would be amazing if these matching fragments had coincidentally matched if they had not come from the same source. It has long been a practice of CTs to dismiss highly probative evidence of Oswald's guilt if that evidence is not 100% conclusive. It's the excuse they need to dismiss evidence of Oswald's guilt. But MTG will proudly tout the fact BBN determined with 91% probability that the acoustics evidence showed their was a shooter on the GK. Never mind that they were evaluating their own work. I wish my teachers in high school would have let me grade my own work. I would have gotten straight A's.

Later on he claimed I reject NAA testing because I said the ballistic matching alone proves the limo fragments came from Oswald's rifle. On the contrary, I accept the NAA testing which contrary to MTG's suggestion, DID MATCH the various fragments. The fact that such matching is not 100% conclusive doesn't change the fact they did match.

He demand that I produce an example of another FMJ Carcano bullet that fragmented the way the bullet recovered from the limo did, even thought the JFKA is the only case study we have of how such a bullet would behave when striking a human skull. It is a one of one example.

He proudly states "I've read a number of books on forensics and ballistics." as if that makes him an expert. Reading a book and understanding it are not one and the same, especially when one does the reading through the distorting lens of conspiracy.

His answer to my question of what happened to the bullets that struck JFK if it was not CE399  nor the fragments found in the limo was one of the most comical statements he has ever made. He wrote:

"Criminals who aren't trying to get caught, and who aren't being framed, well, you see, they make every effort to ensure they don't leave behind a bunch of incriminating evidence in plain sight to be easily found by police"

Are we supposed to believe that the person who fired the shots that killed JFK would have then retrieved the bullets from those shots so as to not leave behind incriminating evidence?
He has taken comic relief to a whole new level with that statement.

The above is just a smattering of MTG's ridiculous (and funny) arguments. Even trying to present the Cliff Notes rebuttal I have already spent way more time on this than I intended. I'll save further comments for another post. I'm sure MTG will provide plenty more easy targets in his future posts.

Uh-huh. Another giant whiff.

IOW, you have no credible answers to the scientific evidence regarding the behavior of standard FMJ rifle bullets, no answers to the wound-ballistics tests that prove that standard FMJ rifle bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull, and no answers to the straightforward statements of forensic and ballistics experts that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull.

You refuse to acknowledge the well-documented scientific objections to the subjective field of ballistic matching, i.e., matching striations on a given bullet/fragment with a particular rifle barrel. Why? Because, with the death of Guinn's NAA, the only evidence you have to link the bullet/fragment material in the JFK case with the alleged murder weapon is the subjective ballistic-matching claim.

Just FYI, there are plenty of additional peer-reviewed scientific sources on the subjective nature of ballistic matching and the problems with it. Here's a small sample of the additional evidence on this point:

Major cases and legal decisions where ballistic matching was invalidated, restricted, or proven false include the following:

1. Patrick Pursley (Rockford, Illinois - 1993 / Exonerated 2019)

• The Case: Pursley was convicted of a 1993 murder based largely on state ballistics testimony that claimed crime-scene bullets matched a Taurus 9mm firearm from his home "to the exclusion of all others". There was no DNA, fingerprint, or eyewitness evidence.

• The Invalidation: After serving nearly 24 years in prison, independent retesting using modern databases (NIBIN) and independent experts proved the ballistics did not match his gun. He was acquitted and released in 2019.

2. Kobina Ebo Abruquah v. State of Maryland (Maryland - 2023)

• The Case: Abruquah was convicted of murder in 2013 using traditional microscopic ballistics comparisons.
• The Invalidation: In June 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland ruled that firearm identification has not been shown to be scientifically reliable or reproducible.
• The Ruling: The court restricted examiners from claiming a specific gun fired a specific bullet, limiting them to stating that markings are merely "consistent" or "inconsistent".

3. FBI Bullet Lead Analysis (National - Discontinued 2005)

• The Case: For decades, the FBI used comparative bullet lead analysis (CBLA) in hundreds of trials to link crime-scene bullets to boxes of ammunition owned by suspects based on chemical lead composition, even when the actual weapon was missing.
• The Invalidation: Following a critical National Academy of Sciences report showing the method relied on subjective speculation rather than sound science, the FBI officially abandoned bullet lead analysis in 2005, prompting the review of numerous historic convictions (such as the case of Jimmy Yates).

Key Scientific Studies Underlying the Invalidations

• PCAST Report (2016): The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology declared that foundational studies assessing the scientific validity of firearm toolmark matching did not meet proper empirical standards.

• ASU / Arizona State University Study (2023): Research published in PNAS revealed that 85% of cartridge-case comparisons judged "inconclusive" by firearm examiners were actually fired by two different guns, proving that inconclusive findings often point toward innocence rather than a neutral state.

You can Google these cases, if you don't believe me. You guys either are not aware of the known problems with ballistic matching or you are vacuously dismissing it because it destroys the only evidence you have that links the bullet/fragment material with the alleged murder weapon.

Incredibly, 20 years after it was debunked, you are still citing Guinn's NAA test! Let me repeat some of the facts that I've presented to you before about Guinn's NAA test:

The first scientific study that identified errors in Guinn’s NAA claims was authored by Dr. Erik Randich and Dr. Patrick Grant in 2006. Their article, titled [/url=https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc890664/m2/1/high_res_d/900118.pdf]“Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence from Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives,”[/url] was published by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

James DiEugenio commented on the Radich and Grant soon soon after it was published:

Randich and Grant declare that a major fault in the HSCA work is Guinn's tenet that WCC MC lead "was found to differ sharply from typical bullet leads." This is not the case: WCC MC bullets do not differ sharply from most bullet leads. They are much like other metal-jacketed leads. The MC lead seemed different to Guinn because he compared it to unjacketed handgun rounds. In his talk in San Francisco of July 15, 2006, Randich said that outside of .38 and .22 handguns, most bullet manufacturers use the same lead alloy. (He put the figure at about 75%.) This is shocking. What it says is that the lead alloy for MC ammunition, far form being unique, is the same that say, Remington would use. So one of the pillars of Guinn's work, the singular identifiability of MC ammunition, has now fallen.

Randich and Grant also concluded that Guinn's sampling number for his conclusions was way too small to allow for the possibility of random matches. Randich said that the FBI held until recently that you could not get random matches with NAA analysis. It was later determined that they had never looked for any. After 2004, when Randich became a witness against them, they did look and they found one. (“Death of the NAA Verdict,” Kennedys and King website, 2006, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict.)

In 2007, another scientific study, authored by five scientists, likewise identified errors in Guinn’s NAA conclusions and found that the bullet fragments could have come from “three or more separate bullets.” Their study, titled "Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible?”, was published in the scientific journal The Annals of Applied Statistics. I quote from their study: 

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. In particular, the new test results are compared to key bullet composition testimony presented before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Matches of bullets within the same box of bullets are shown to be much more likely than indicated in the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ testimony.

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. (https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-applied-statistics/volume-1/issue-2/Chemical-and-forensic-analysis-of-JFK-assassination-bullet-lots/10.1214/07-AOAS119.pdf, p. 287) 

Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses the 2007 study:

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. (“Is Vincent Bugliosi Right that Neutron Activation Analysis Proves Oswald's Guilt?”, https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-)_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html)

But MTG will proudly tout the fact BBN determined with 91% probability that the acoustics evidence showed their was a shooter on the GK.

Can you ever get your facts straight? This is not to mention your butchered English.

The probability of the grassy knoll shot was determined by Weiss and Aschkenasy based on the 26-point match from their sonar analysis of the 144.9 impulse pattern and the impulse pattern of the test shot from the grassy knoll, and the probability was determined to be "95% or higher," not 91%. BBN's scientists agreed with this finding, but they were not the ones who did the sonar analysis.

How can you get such basic stuff wrong after taking part in the ongoing thread on the acoustical evidence? Answer: Because you refuse to process facts that refute what you want to believe. People can present you with cold, hard, documented facts, but you will reject those facts if they refute what you want to believe, even though you have no rational basis for doing so.

Yes, Albert…….. mssr. Burnham hitched his star to Hemming and Prouty’s gamma ray bursters ! There’s no turning back after that.  Weberman got caught in Hemming’s web of malarkey as well  lol.

Burnham’s web page insures first-source, uh, sources.  Jerome Corsi, par example.  Ok.  Sure.  Listen to a few seconds of Greg’s presentation in 2013 with Mike Judge may he rest in peace.  It was all downhill from there for the realtor from San Diego lol.  I lived in La Jolla for a while, 85 degrees all year round.  Need my seasons.  Bundle up for our nuclear winter wassail, my fossil.

I find no mention or discussion of the 6th Floor Museum 1st generation copy of Darnell to be totally disingenuous and indicative of secret societies forming within JFK research and controlling topics...

7 countries involved. 5 years in the making.
one idiot tore it up to start over - and we're stuck in another forever war

Let's be honest here Iran's been at war with us since Carter, and the JCPOA was worthless after 15 years. Trump tore up the agreement as he should have. Thanks to Donald Trump and Israel we will never need to worry about Iran having nuclear weapons.