Paul Baker

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Baker

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. A discredits B, C discredits A ... Based on what I've read, Jim, I think there are valid inferences that have been made with respect to the bullet fragments. While that can be discredited and perhaps deemed inadmissible in a court of law, you understand that I look at it all from a different perspective.
  2. My field is in organometallic chemistry. I've read all of the articles cited, and some others. As usual there are arguments and counterarguments to the validity of NAA with respect to the Kennedy assassination and in particular the single bullet theory. Arguments in this area tend to have an emphasis on statistical analysis, probability and the context of the studies, rather than the underlying science. As usual, a veritable minefield.
  3. Make assumptions all you like. A court room doesn't necessarily work in the same way as a laboratory, Michael. Otherwise certain people would be in jail, and others wouldn't.
  4. We seem to be at cross purposes. Perhaps I'm not being clear. If Jim says that NAA as a technique is unreliable with respect to the compositional analysis of bullet fragments, he is wrong. It is not, as he says, 'junk science'. As far as I am aware, these procedures were carried out a few times on the bullet fragments and the near-whole bullet recovered. These procedures were carried out correctly in a controlled environment. Samples were bombarded with neutrons, artificial radioactive isotopes were created, the resultant gamma rays were detected and characterised, elemental composition was derived from those. This is not junk science. It's clear (to me, at least) that Jim uses that term in an attempt to expunge the NAA results from the record. However, I argue that the results are relevant. They can't simply be dismissed because someone who doesn't like or understand them decides to ignore them. NAA is a valid, sensitive, qualitative and quantitative analytical technique. So what qualifies somebody like Jim, who consistently dismisses anything out of hand that contradicts his warped world view, to trash this technique? Nothing at all. The results are, of course, open to interpretation, as are the results of any and all scientific analyses. At a high level the results certainly don't indicate a wide variation of composition in the fragments recovered. They do suggest that the source of the samples examined originated from no more than two bullets, in mine and others' opinion. I am entitled, and particularly as a scientist myself, to have that opinion. I am also able to change that opinion in light of other analyses and interpretations. As yet, though, I haven't. What I don't do is wear blinkers and bathe in the light of the conclusion that helps to support my theory. Scientists can't do that, because if they do they stop being a scientist. As for me being 'shameless' and 'changing horses', I'm not quite sure I understand that. I assume these words are a consequence of Jim's favourite logical fallacy, ad hominem. He doesn't seem to be aware that it is a fallacy, of course. It's good enough for him to discredit a person in any way whatsoever, regardless of its relevance to the point that person is making, in order to subvert their point. In my world that doesn't work, though I'll readily admit that its crudeness and simplicity does sometimes hold some appeal, especially when having to deal with people like Jim. Paul.
  5. Same old, I'm afraid Jim. None of this is true. That doesn't, of course, stop you from recycling any of it. Since when did truth matter to you, after all?
  6. Just for the record, The USA isn't the only country in the world. There are many others, with their own timezones, languages, cultures, etc. I don't tend to visit this forum whilst sleeping. Jim still maintains that 'there is no real science to NAA'. Jim, there is, but by all means continue to disregard out of hand anything that upsets your spurious world view. I suspect that if Kennedy hadn't been shot at that day, the object that Mercer saw being taken out of that truck would have looked more like a toolbox than a gun case. Paul.
  7. I don't take sides, Jim, you should know that. Mercer's account of the events she witnessed that day cannot enter into the equation. It's too ridiculous to suppose that she saw Ruby and Oswald getting ready for the assassination by parking up on Elm (illegally I would assume), and putting things in place in front of other motorists as they negotiated around their vehicle. Isn't it? Plus of course DPD records do show that a truck did break down in that location that morning. Don't they? Go on, admit that you only support her story because it helps to support any notion that there was a conspiracy. You can't sincerely believe it had anything to do with the assassination, can you? As for NAA, it's clearly something you have minimal understanding of. Hence your statement (which I'll never forget): 'There's no real science to it'. This is established scientific procedure that has been measured and documented in precise detail, and subsequently reproduced. As a layman, you can't simply dismiss it as 'junk science' just because it disagrees with your theory. Paul.
  8. Watch your back. You know too much!
  9. Ah, yes. Julia Ann Mercer. Another favourite. Over an hour before the assassination, she saw Jack Ruby and Oswald setting up position on the Grassy Knoll, parking their truck on Elm and blocking traffic? I think she said or implied that DPD officers were helping in some way. She saw all of this within the few seconds that her progress was blocked by the truck. Some nonsense like that. Her story has a foot in reality, in that a truck did break down in that area on that morning, but that was about it. Still, a difficult one for the likes of DiEugenio to let go of since it somehow supports his position, regardless of its incredibility. As for insults, that's how James usually deals with being cornered! I've witnessed that somewhat embarrassing tactic too many times to count.
  10. Amazing, I've never seen that before. You may have just kicked off a whole new line of enquiry! I see Hitler issuing orders to the alien. Crikey. Joking aside, this does demonstrate the results you get if you look at a grainy image for long enough ...
  11. I'm sure I'm not alone in my opinion here, Ray. Why did these people say what they did? To garner attention? To give their otherwise unnoteworthy lives a veneer of significance? I don't know. People do things like this all of the time, don't they? I'm sure that certain high-profile conspiracy theorists behave in a similar way. Certainly when something big happens, we see these people crawl out of the woodwork. Their motivation isn't important, however. What's important is that their claims can be fairly easily unpicked. Beverley Oliver claimed she was The Babushka Lady. Clearly she was not. Look at the photographs. Also, she claimed that she filmed the assassination with a camera that didn't exist at that time. Her film has never materialised. Complete nonsense that she elaborated on with events she supposedly witnessed before the assassination. Jean Hill didn't see a Grassy Knoll shooter in 1963. Later she did. Later she said she came up with the term 'Grassy Knoll'! She claimed attempts were made on her life, but apparently those same people that murdered JFK in broad daylight couldn't come up with a means of killing Hill, and evidently gave up after a few tries. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Listen to her interview on Black Op Radio. Anyone who believes she is credible based on that is, for want of a better word, stupid. Gordon Arnold. I'm not sure what the politically correct word was for his condition but I'd describe him as a retard. He stopped at Dealey Plaza on a whim, to film a 'parade' (his words). He had no idea what that parade was about until he saw the President come around the corner. He decided to tell his story over a decade later when - I think - the HSCA proceedings were in the news. His experience is not supported by any evidence. He is not in any photo. His statement on that appalling documentary series The Men Who Killed Kennedy says it all: "There is no doubt in my mind I was there". And I'm sure there wasn't. Ed Hoffmann. A deaf mute who, according to his own family, was a fantasist and completely unreliable. It seems to me that his account has been lifted out of a James Bond film. Again, I don't think there's any evidence that he was really there (correct me if I'm wrong). Again, his story changed over the years and only first came to light several years after the assassination. This isn't about summary dismissal of anyone's claims that support the conspiracy story. Nothing any of them have said is backed up by other witnesses, photographic or physical evidence. Only Jean Hill was there, and for whatever reason decided over the years to embellish her story. Mary Moorman, standing next to Hill at the time, can't corroborate any of her claims. It's a no-brainer. Though of course, many conspiracy theorists like to give these people more credibility than they deserve. They don't deserve any. If there is a coherent conspiracy theory to be discovered, Oliver, Hill, Arnold or Hoffmann won't move anyone closer to it.
  12. This list certainly doesn't prove that there were more than three shots. It's your (and others') interpretation of these events. The reality is that the three shot scenario is the most probable by far, based on the totality of the available evidence: A single weapon was involved in the assassination. No other weapons have been recovered. Bullet fragments and the almost whole bullet recovered at Parkland were determined to have come from a single source. A single bullet caused wounds to JFK and Connally. An analysis of the trajectory of the missile and the positions of JFK and Connally at the moment of this shot supports this fact. They can also be seen reacting to an external stimulus simultaneously in the Zapruder film. NAA also supports the single bullet scenario. All wounds sustained during the timeline of the assassination support a single, fixed source of the shooting. The vast majority of witnesses reported hearing exactly three shots (If there were five shots, I'd have at least expected witness testimony to support that idea). Three spent shells were recovered in the TSBD following the assassination. Nobody saw another shooter*, and neither is there any unambiguous (i.e. not open to interpretation) evidence of additional shooters. * Beverley Oliver, Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffmann et al. are not honest, reliable witnesses. Paul.
  13. I've never come across any physical evidence that proves four or more shots. Where can I find that?
  14. Of the testimony from 178 witnesses to the HSCA concerning the number of shots fired, 132 said they heard three (74%) and just six said they heard four (3%). Those that heard two, or two to three, number 24 (13%). So the number that heard four or more with respect to those that heard three or fewer is not significant. The so-called 'magic' bullet wasn't pristine.
  15. The HSCA came to their 'conclusion' at the eleventh hour following the appraisal of the acoustic evidence. I put 'conclusion' in quotes because it's not really a conclusion, in my opinion, since it states that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy. It is my understanding that, until then, the HSCA were moving towards the invevitable conclusion that the Warren Commission (and the DPD for that matter) reached in the wake of the assasination the previous decade. The vast majority of witnesses heard only three shots, and the only bullets found (fragmentary or otherwise) were determined to have originated from a single source. Furthermore, the acoustic evidence was comprehensively invalidated over thirty years ago. So as far as I'm aware there remains no hard evidence that supports an additional shooter or shooters either on the Grassy Knoll or anywhere else in Dealey Plaza on that day.