Thanks Mark 

Trump at least knows how to get his head out of the way of a gunshot.

…….but he still doesn’t know how to get it out of his Bahookie anus bahookie!  yesssssssssss !!   scooooooooore !!

“missed it by that much !”
             ———— maxwell dumb

sigh.  so many jfk CTers have succumbed to their own hubris.  to believe Hemming and Prouty is to
believe modern myths.  what fools they are.

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)

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.

More BLAH,  BLAH, BLAH from MTG. He ignores some very simple truths.

Both the fragments bullet found in the limo and CE399 were positively matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons through well established and accept means that have been accepted as valid evidence by our courts since 1879.

The fragments were found in the same limo that both shooting victims were riding in.

CE399 was found on the stretcher that one of the victims was transported on at Parkland.

NAA testing showed that the lead fragments recovered from the limo matched the metallurgical contend of the lead fragments recovered from JFK's head.

NAA testing showed the fragments from JBC's wrist matched the lead in CE399.

While it has been determined that NAA testing is not 100% conclusive that two fragments came from the same bullet, it is still probative. It would be a remarkable coincidence if just one of these tests produced a false positive. MTG wants us to believe that two remarkable coincidences occurred. It would be highly significant if they did not match. In that circumstance we could conclude that the fragments did not come from the same bullet.

Likewise, it would be remarkable if the striations on the two large copper fragments just coincidentally matched test bullets from Oswald's rifle.

In short, the forensic evidence is exactly what we would expect it to be if the fragmented bullet in the limo, the recovered lead fragments, and CE399 had all come through the barrel of Oswald's rifle. MTG will continue to ignore this and create excuses for not believing that is what happened. MTG would have us believe that the fragments from JBC's wrist and the lead from CE399 just coincidentally had the same make up. MTG would have us believe that the lead fragment from recovered from the limo and the fragments removed from JFK's head just coincidentally had the same make up.

MTG is an airhead. That has been proven conclusively.

"I know I have the option of not reading these posts. However, I remain mystified as to how most of these replies have anything at all to do with JFK. I suggest that there be a TDS Forum added to the Education Forum so that those wishing to discuss Trump have a place to do so."--Greg Burnham 10.7.2026 post in Education Forum.

Burnham is a solid JFKA researcher, who has different views from mine. So it goes.

Verily, and the title of the thread in which Burnham posted?

Donald Trump, the Deep State and the JFK Assassination

There are others, such as JFK Files and the Jeffrey Epstein files

Such threads are, of course, tailor-made for TDS, Israel Derangement Syndrome (IDS) and other feculent mental disabilities. You can imagine what is said about Epstein. Or maybe you can't---much of it is nutty.

(BTW, I have mixed regard for Trump).

In truth, the Education Forum has improved under the leadership of Andrew Iler, and the deposing of the florid anti-Semitic crackpot and "moderator" William Niedernut.

The posts connecting Jews, 9.11, the USS Liberty, the RFKA, Mossad, Watergate and and the King and Malcom X assssinations, and I forget what else, have largely disappeared.

But Iler is saddled with the legacy founder, John Simkin, who seems to ache for platform to post his far left-wing views on every topic under the sun, from US national debt, to whatever Trump said now. Other legacy members pile on...and on....and on....and on.....

To be honest, there is a fair sprinkling of LNT'er posters in the Education Forum now, including Fred Litwin. I like to see all points of view, and that is an improvement.

But, if you have TDS, there is a home for you in the JFKA research land...the Education Forum!

I certainly hope so.

TDS = Trump Disinformation Sanitizer

You're not there yet. Looks like a long way to go.
There was a lot of good in that agreement and there was no need to kick us all the way back to square one.
Furthermore because of Trump's Unauthorized War, we are now dealing with a much more hard-nose regime. 

Two things are very concerning. You won't be able to kill the nuclear ambition (even for conventional use) Especially now. And there will have to be some kind of trust in the Iranians brought to the table.

It will likely take a very long time to get back to even the basic framework of JCPOA.
  Yea, let's be honest. It appears to be the only reasonable solution to work toward.

The war has given The Traitorous Orange You-Know-What a rationalization for financially supporting, with U.S. taxpayers' dollars and in a politically popular kind-of-way, his hero, Vladimir Putin (who installed him as our "president" in the first place), in his genocide against Ukraine and imminent invasion of the rest of Europe.