Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Baker

Members
  • Posts

    361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paul Baker

  1. Ok, let's just try this one more time, using big letters for emphasis: I DO NOT CARE WHO THESE REALLY IMPORTANT PEOPLE ARE. Jim DiEugenio, as far as I'm concerned, has very little credibility. Tell me, how can 'one of the best researchers ever on the assassination' have systematically failed over the years to produce any compelling argument that diminishes the conclusion of the WC? His dependency on a varied assortment of logical fallacies doesn't really help his case either.
  2. I can't bring to mind a single thing you've ever written that shines any light in the dark corners of this forum of general ignorance. All you seem to do, and indeed have just done, is resort to the kind of argument that might get you a win in the school playground.
  3. Excuse me, Jim. I'm not hanging onto anything. I don't care whether there was a conspiracy or not, I just don't believe there was one. So let's have a look at how the single bullet theory collapses under scrutiny. Everything I've read about it suggests that the WC must have got it right. But, I am a sentient human being with a functioning analytical brain, and am able to be persuaded otherwise.
  4. I think you're missing the point. I don't care who these 'really important' people are. I care more about a better explanation that fits the available facts. Why don't you share that? Then I can decide whether it really is a better explanation, and in turn even perhaps adjust my position.
  5. Absolutely! Anyone who has a contrary opinion shouldn't be allowed to pollute a forum of 'debate' with their outlandish ideas. Ideas that, although not built on the foundations of heresay, speculation, assumption, misinterpretation, manipulation, etc., are just plain ridiculous nonetheless, by default. They should just shut up! Bravo. Well said. The single bullet (or 'magic bullet' as conspiracy theorists tend to describe it) theory remains the most coherent interpretation of the established facts. If anyone describes it as 'total crap', that carries very little weight, regardless of their perceived importance, unless they can provide a better explanation. Can these really important people do that?
  6. You're really quite predictable, Jim. You do make me chuckle. How do you know how anyone would react, given that some people thought the first shot was the sound of a firecracker, given that there was - presumably - a general hubbub going on as the President passed? Also, you're asserting that a shot had been fired at this point into Kennedy's back, so why does it matter where it came from? Wouldn't people have reacted in the way you've suggested regardless of its origin? On top of that, why are those SS agents looking towards the TSBD? It's ridiculous to assert that this image proves that the bullet in question didn't come from Oswald's rifle. (Incidentally, witnesses did see him pointing and firing a gun out of the sixth floor window. What's that all about?)
  7. This is true, of course. Jim, you keep on copying and pasting swathes of cherry-picked text to support your stance. (By the way, in any real research community, that approach isn't particularly effective). Incidentally, discrediting CBLA is not equivalent to discrediting NAA. The methodology is sound and proven. The NAA studies conducted as part of the investigation of President Kennedy support the notion that the bullets fired that day originated from a single source. The technique could have just as easily demonstrated that the bullets came from more than one source (in which case I'm certain that DiEugenio et al wouldn't be quite so critical of it). This is just one small corner of a case in which all hard physical evidence supports, way beyond any reasonable doubt, the lone gunman and the single bullet theory. There is no hard physical evidence that supports any other scenario.
  8. Once again, what you've pasted there does nothing to discredit the validity of NAA. This refers to its presentation in a court of law, where science and logic and reason don't neccessarily prevail. I struggle to understand why anyone can't comprehend this distinction. Then I remember where I am
  9. Fred, I'm far from believing everything Jim DiEugenio says. I do admire him in some ways, though. He sticks to his guns and never lets reality get him down.
  10. There is a certain amount of confusion here about what constitutes valid science, compared to its presentation and interpretation inside a courtroom. That's a wider issue which does nothing to invalidate the NAA technique which is proven to work extremely effectively on small, sometimes microscopic, metallic and metal alloy samples. The NAA analysis of the bullet fragments retrieved from the crime scene essentially supports the lone gunman scenario as well as the single bullet theory. There is of course, lots of other supporting evidence in these regards (though nothing, curiously, that contradicts them). I do wish I hadn't responded to Jim's nonsense in the first place, I should know better by now. I've been through this too many times (though nowhere near as often as some) with people that summarily disregard anything that doesn't fit in with their own - often blinkered - world view. All the while they claim to be serious researchers! It goes some way to explain why, after 50+ years, not one amongst them has come up with a viable alternative to the basic conclusion that the DPD arrived at within 48 hours of the assassination. Oh, except for Jim Garrison of course It would be funny if it wasn't quite so pathetic.
  11. You can keep saying that, Jim. Sadly there is no correlation between the validity of any statement and the number of times you repeat or CAPITALISE it. I'm sure there's a latin term for this pseudologic. Reductio ad nausem? Hell though, if it's working for you, I can understand its appeal. However, In the scientific community (as opposed to this 'research' community) it doesn't work. Its effectiveness is zero. Plain and simple. I hope you understand, but I understand that you may not. I also understand that I have far better things to do than try to convince you of anything. There's nothing junk about the science simply because you (and your average jury member) can't interpret the NAA results which help to support the single bullet theory.
  12. Not that old chestnut again, Jim. Just because NAA is something you don't understand, that doesn't make it junk science. NAA isn't junk science. It's a valid, reliable, sensitive and non-destructive analytical technique. This simple, truthful statement won't, of course, prevent you from spouting rubbish the next time you brush up against reality, I'm sure, but I felt compelled to repeat it. Still ignorant after all these years. Sigh.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. On this forum, stating facts does go against the grain somewhat, and is bound to ruffle a few feathers.
  16. 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!
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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?
  23. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...