Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Paul Baker

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Baker

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. The White Album was released on the fifth anniversary of the assassination. The Beatles' second album in the UK was released on the actual day. Coincidence? After all, the Beatles' popularity in the US might not have been quite as immense if the shadow of the assassination hadn't been cast over the population beforehand. There is a plot to be uncovered here, and McCartney knew all about it. When he started showing interest in Mark Lane in 1966 the others decided he was too much of a risk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead It all fits together quite nicely.
  2. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    Another edifying post from David. That's 3,266 at this moment in time. I wonder how many words they could all be reduced to, without suffering any loss of information. About five or six, I reckon.
  3. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    On this forum, stating facts does go against the grain somewhat, and is bound to ruffle a few feathers.
  4. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    So Jim believes that, by some reasoning, the Abbate affair somehow reduces the credibility of McAdams' logic with respect to the JFK assassination. That is of course pure nonsense, but he's unlikely to ever admit that. I did, of course, search for the debate online, but what I found seemed to me to be too short to qualify. I look forward to listening, and hope it isn't as cringeworthy as Jim's failed attempt. Jim brings up NAA again. I'm not convinced he understands the science behind it, and is more concerned with discrediting those who demonstrate it as a viable analytic technique. Which is nothing new with this guy. Touché!
  5. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    Thank you kindly.
  6. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    Is there somewhere I can read or listen to this? I'd be very interested to do so. Jim DiEugenio made a similar, albeit erroneous, claim. The reality is that it is quite difficult for a logical, scientific researcher to discredit John McAdams' stance regarding the JFK assassination; that there is a body of best evidence, without recourse to fanciful conjecture, that points to the truth. It seems that the only real strategy of attack is to employ fallacious ad hominem tactics. That McAdams is in this current situation does nothing to dilute or discredit his arguments. That no-one can address those head on, but rather attempt to destroy them using this age-old school playground approach says a lot about the research community.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.