IOW, because you are determined to believe the autopsy x-rays are unaltered, you won't even bother to read research by two highly qualified experts in the fields of radiology, physics, and neuroscience that proves via OD measurements that the x-rays have been altered.
Just curious: Are you ever going to deal with the drastic conflict between the skull x-rays and the autopsy brain photos?
Wow, talk about misleading cherry-picking. I think this shows you are untrustworthy and misleading when it comes to dealing with evidence you don't like. Here are some of the statements you must have missed when you were hastily skimming through the Tobin-Spiegelman-Sheather-James-Roundhill-Wexler 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." How did you miss that?
"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." How did you miss that?
"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." How did you miss that?
If one reads the statement that you dishonestly cherry-picked in its full context, one sees that the authors are saying that while Guinn "may" have been correct, he had no scientific basis for saying that all the fragments came from only two bullets. Their whole point is that NAA shows that the fragments could have come from three or more bullets. To put it another way, NAA does not prove that the fragments came only from the two bullets allegedly used by Oswald.
Umm, so you're applying the term "clown" to W. M. Tobin, a principal forensic engineer with Forensic Engineering International; Clifford Spiegelman, who was a professor of statistics at Texas A&M University and a leader in statistical and environmental forensics; Simon Sheather, who headed the Department of Statistics at Texas A&M, who has won the American Statistical Association's Statistics in Chemistry Award, and who is now a visiting professor of statistic at the University of Kentucky; William D. James, a professor of chemical analysis at Texas A&M University who's published several studies on NAA in peer-reviewed scientific journals; and D. M. Roundhill, a chemist with Chemical Consulting who's published several articles on chemistry in peer-reviewed scientific journals?!
I think such absurd polemic makes you the only clown here. If you want to read more about these scholars' education and qualifications, here are some links for you:
https://www.feintl.com/william-tobin/
https://stories.tamu.edu/news/2020/05/18/texas-am-mourns-loss-of-distinguished-professor-of-statistics-cliff-spiegelman/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Sheather
https://share.google/61uTfqvSX3ZKH6hc6 (Dr. Sheather's CV)
https://scholargps.com/scholars/24166986206546/william-d-james
https://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?field1=Contrib&text1=D.%20M.%20Roundhill
IOW, you will summarily dismiss any scientist or any expert who reaches conclusions that you don't like, without even bothering to read their research or just skimming through their research looking for content to quote out of context, and regardless of their acknowledged expertise in their fields.
IOW, because you are determined to believe the autopsy x-rays are unaltered, you won't even bother to read research by two highly qualified experts in the fields of radiology, physics, and neuroscience that proves via OD measurements that the x-rays have been altered.
No DR Mantik stated the X Rays were altered, I have no idea what you are posting about.
Why is it when you see the education and qualifications of these various “experts” does it make you appear to want to have their baby?
Just curious: Are you ever going to deal with the drastic conflict between the skull x-rays and the autopsy brain photos? I thought I did, the head autopsy photos tell the story, according to your expert Dr Mantik, X Rays not so much. Are you only quoting Dr Mantik when it is convenient? If Dr Mantik had known there was only two shots what would have been his conclusions?
Wow, talk about misleading cherry-picking. I think this shows you are untrustworthy and misleading when it comes to dealing with evidence you don't like. Here are some of the statements you must have missed when you were hastily skimming through the Tobin-Spiegelman-Sheather-James-Roundhill-Wexler 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." How did you miss that?
"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." How did you miss that?
"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." How did you miss that?
If one reads the statement that you dishonestly cherry-picked in its full context, one sees that the authors are saying that while Guinn "may" have been correct, he had no scientific basis for saying that all the fragments came from only two bullets. Their whole point is that NAA shows that the fragments could have come from three or more bullets. To put it another way, NAA does not prove that the fragments came only from the two bullets allegedly used by Oswald. Who is one? How about stop reading their nonsense word for word and do some thinking for yourself about what they are really proposing. I never missed anything. They stated Guinn may have been right. Guinn had no Allterior motive unlike your wet dream team and then proved nothing but their inability to think for themselves. What would have been their conclusions if they had known there was only two shots?
Umm, so you're applying the term "clown" to W. M. Tobin, a principal forensic engineer with Forensic Engineering International; Clifford Spiegelman, who was a professor of statistics at Texas A&M University and a leader in statistical and environmental forensics; Simon Sheather, who headed the Department of Statistics at Texas A&M, who has won the American Statistical Association's Statistics in Chemistry Award, and who is now a visiting professor of statistic at the University of Kentucky; William D. James, a professor of chemical analysis at Texas A&M University who's published several studies on NAA in peer-reviewed scientific journals; and D. M. Roundhill, a chemist with Chemical Consulting who's published several articles on chemistry in peer-reviewed scientific journals?! Sounds like them. Yes, you know the Forensic Wet Dream Team. Lots of education but absolutely no brains. Stupid conclusion. The fact you do not see how stupid it really is, explains a why you so deeply believe in this tripe.
I think such absurd polemic makes you the only clown here. If you want to read more about these scholars' education and qualifications, here are some links for you:
https://www.feintl.com/william-tobin/
https://stories.tamu.edu/news/2020/05/18/texas-am-mourns-loss-of-distinguished-professor-of-statistics-cliff-spiegelman/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Sheather
https://share.google/61uTfqvSX3ZKH6hc6 (Dr. Sheather's CV)
https://scholargps.com/scholars/24166986206546/william-d-james
https://pubs.acs.org/action/doSearch?field1=Contrib&text1=D.%20M.%20Roundhill I do not need to read these links. Blah, blah, blah they are amazing people, right? What I read here in this post is there is one very delusional individual who realized the three-shot scenario and believing in it has turned out to be and always has been a complete waste of time and effort and is trying to salvage whatever he can and still portray the illusion of a conspiracy. The fact that you cannot even address the core issue which is there really was only two shots. Two shots make this whole issue of your papers and these pseudo experts and their papers an absolutely moot and meaningless mental exercise. You know, one of the many mental wedgies you are so fond of believing is true.
IOW, you will summarily dismiss any scientist or any expert who reaches conclusions that you don't like, without even bothering to read their research or just skimming through their research looking for content to quote out of context, and regardless of their acknowledged expertise in their fields. I did read them all a long time ago and was unimpressed then and still am today. Wished I had not wasted my time on them. The premise of the paper, the assumptions that were applied, the assertions advanced by them, and the conclusions presented by them are the single most stupid thing I have ever read to date on the JFK Assassination. First the fact that you are so transfixed by the credentials and educational monikers of these clowns and second cannot understand how idiotic of a report was presented is an indication of just how far off the rails your whole story line has gone.
