The Liebeler Memorandum

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So Ray, please ask Blakey how he was going with three shots from behind BEFORE the acoustics came in. He will tell you its from the above and had not one iota to do with the dictabelt.

It is an open secret that Blakey set out to vindicate the Warren Report.

By the time the HSCA came into being there were fairly widespread suspicions that some or all of

the physical evidence was planted, and Blakey thought the accoustics would put that issue beyond doubt,

by PROVING what Blakey already believed, namely 3 shots from the TSBD.

SO the accoustics seemed to confirm the Warren Report, until the experts also claimed to hear a fourth shot

from the knoll. Blakey could accomodate this fourth shot into his worldview (he had his mafia theory already lined up)

as long as he could he could still make Oz the assassin, by claiming that the knoll shot missed.

Blakey's goal was to shore up the weaknesses in the case against Oz,

and the accoustics fit the bill, so he invested his credibility in the accoustics.

When the National Academy showed that the accoustics were JUNK SCIENCE many (e.g. Wesley Liebeler) thought this would end

the claims of a knoll gunman, but in fact the logical implications are quite different.

When the National academy exposed the truth about the accoustics, they (unintentionally)

reawakened the pre-existing doubts about whether any shots were fired from the TSBD.

Since there is no valid accoustic evidence of shots from the TSBD, then the inquiry about the source of

the shots is back where it was when Josiah THompson wrote that 399 had every appearance of being PLANTED.

I submit that it is Mr. Di Eugenio who fails to understand the true significance of the brouha concerning the accoustics.

Edited May 28, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The acoustics had nothing to do with either originating it or discrediting it.

The acoustics did not originate the theory of three shots from the TSBD, and no one

has ever suggested that they did.

But when the National Academy discredited the acoustics, by doing so they accidentally helped to discredit

the theory of three shots from the TSBD.

This is simply a FACT, which for some strange reason some researchers refuse to acknowledge.

This particular obtuseness seems to be a characteristic of

the ANTI-LIFTON school.

THere is no conclusive proof of three shots (or any shots) from the TSBD,

thanks to the National Academy,

and by coincidence there is no conclusive proof that JFK

had a back wound at Parkland.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Ray, that is just nonsense.

And its a particular strain of nonsense, that we should call Carrollian.

For obvious reasons. (But I like the reminder of the author of Alice in Wonderland.)

Jimmy,

What shall we call it when you make stuff up about me, you know, like when you claimed I knew NOTHING about Harold Weisberg's unpublished manuscripts. What shall we call that?

How about DisEugeniuous.

Todd

Edited May 28, 2011 by Todd W. Vaughan

[David Josephs]

No Ray, this is what the HSCA stuck with.

This is where the official story is right now.

This is the evidence which originated the whole three shot scenario, with Oswald as the lone assassin.

The acoustics had nothing to do with either originating it or discrediting it.

Jim,

There is a good question in there... and maybe you can help me understand...

Doesn't the acceptance of the HSCA acoustics suggest the only other spot for the shots was the SE corner window or does it allow for a DalTex roof shot... DT 2nd floor? TSBD SW window?

and if we maintain 3 sniper teams as the most plausible of scenarios... shouldn't the tape have picked up this third location?

one caveat... I've come to believe the teams would be sync'd via collins radio equipment and fire simultaneously thereby making 3 shots sound like one... or 2 more quiet rifles disappear under a loud one...

DJ

[Todd W. Vaughan]

"the lack of a real attempt a full photographic reconstruction of the motorcade"

Let me post that here: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

You know David, I really do not know what to make of the acoustics evidence anymore. Especially after Mantik's long discussion of it for his review of the Thomas book.

Let me post that here: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/mantik_thomas_review_pt3.html

I think now that the actual data used in this, the original dictabelt, the very limited testing done by Blakey, the lack of a real attempt a full photographic reconstruction of the motorcade, I think these all contribute to not being able to really rely upon it in any foolproof way. There is no denying that Thomas made a valiant effort to do something positive with it. And he is to be congratulated for that effort. But, as Mantik shows, I just don't think the underlying data will fully support him.

Now you're point, about a differing location which was not tested, that falls directly into the lacuna in the database. Yes perhaps that is correct. But if you read Mantik's analysis, the fault may be with the actual recording itself and the techniques used therein. So even if that shot would have ben reconstructed, it may not have been recorded correctly.

So I am in a quandary about it.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Jim,

I see, you now can’t bring yourself to address your post to me. Can’t say I blame you.

Once again you floated a bogus claim about the case that there was a "lack of a real attempt a full photographic reconstruction of the motorcade"”

I simply pointed out that there in fact has been a “real attempt a full photographic reconstruction of the motorcade”. I even provided you the link to that full photographic reconstruction of the motorcade.

But I see that gets your panties in a bind.

You don’t have to like it, or agree with it, or even understand it (btw, when’s you refutation of it coming out over on CTKA?), but don’t sit top your high-horse and mislead your readers by claiming one has never been done. That’s just plain DisEugenious.

Then you have the audacity, in a reply to my post, to ask “Dale” five questions when you can’t even answer one of mine?

Rather cowardly, don’t you think?

Jim, how many times do I have to ask you, on what basis did you make the claim that I didn’t know anything about Weisberg’s manuscripts? What was your basis for saying that?

Or, like I think, did you make it up?

Prove me wrong.

Todd

From Dale Myers:

The importance of the HSCA’s acoustic evidence cannot be over emphasized. It is the only hard, physical evidence ever offered in support of a conspiracy over the course of the nearly four-and-a-half decade assassination debate. Without it, there is no credible reason to believe that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald fired shots at the Kennedy motorcade.

Oh really Dale?

1. How about the switching of whatever projectile was found at Parkland for that shiny MC Western Cartridge bullet that we now call CE 399? This in itself, in the Warren COmmissions' own terms, proves Oswald did not fire what became CE 399.

2. How about the funny 6.5 mm fragment that is obvious as a candle in a pumpkin (to use Mili Cranor's figure), yet no one saw the night of the autopsy but which Russ Fisher used to elevate the rear skull wound?

3. Which leads us to the fact that this bullet split in three leaving the middle in the rear skull while the front and back hurtled forward through the head and ended up coming out the right front and into the car. What, did the rear of the bullet elevate itself miraculously to pass up the middle? I call this Magic Bullet Number 2.

4. What about CE 543 which was not fired that day?

5. How about the fact that John Stringer did not take the photos of whatever brain is in the National Archives today?

Recall, this is the guy who got on National TV for his good pal Gus Russo and Peter Jennings and said that the Single Bullet Theory was not a theory but a fact.

Without saying that CE 399 was not even found at Parkland!

Edited May 28, 2011 by Todd W. Vaughan

[J. Raymond Carroll]

You know David, I really do not know what to make of the acoustics evidence anymore.

Well that is a sad commentary, Jim,

because I have explained the whole subject on this thread.

Maybe you should re-read it, or call up Robert Blakey.

Edited May 28, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If you read Mantik's excellent essay--which you probably have not--you will see why I am befuddled on this issue.

Yes Jim, I can see why you are befuddled.

You simply do not understand the issues involved, and neither does Dr. Mantik.

Call Robert Blakey, who is now a sadder and a wiser man.

Edited May 28, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray, please show me your advanced degree in physics,

Even if I could show an advanced degree in physics,

it would not be RELEVANT here, since the acoustics is not a question of PHYSICS DUH!

and your extensive background in scientific experimentation.

Again I make no claims to such a background, but you can ask Peter Dale Scott if I have the ability

to critique so-called scientific theories.

Dr. Scott was KEYNOTE SPEAKER at THE THIRD DECADE conference in FREDONIA in 1996,

when I predicted, CORRECTLY AND EXPLAINED WHY,

Dr. Guinn's theory of bullet lead comparison

would be rejected by the courts.

While I do not practice scientific experiments,

as a student of Charles Sanders Peirce

I understand the basic principles of science,

which you OBVIOUSLY do not,

as demonstrated by your ADMITTED confusion about the acoustics!

Edited May 29, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If you read David's essay on the acoustics, you will see that only such a man could write something like that and have the relevant info at his fingertips and be able to master and discuss it.

before I respond,

could you please tell me who DAVID is?

I am already aware that YOU YOURSELF

Do not have the FOGGIEST IDEA

about the assassination

of JFK.

[Pat Speer]

Duh, Ray, an advanced degree in physics simply means that one has a large knowledge of scientific experimentation and the scientific method.

If you read David's essay on the acoustics, you will see that only such a man could write something like that and have the relevant info at his fingertips and be able to master and discuss it.

Could you have written something like that? With all the visual graphs and charts included?

Finally, please explain to us your Fredonia talk on NAA and how that beat to the punch the Randich-Grant and Spiegelman-Tobin studies. Where did you get your background in metallurgy and statistics and bullet lead analysis?

Jim, FWIW, I debunked Guinn's conclusions while knowing very little about NAA. Guinn's conclusions should have been thrown out by Blakey, etc, in 1979, as they were inconsistent with both Guinn's previous writings and the evidence presented to support them. Here is what I wrote BEFORE the studies put into motion by Pinkston and Wexler reached fruition...

Another strong argument against the single-bullet theory can be found in the words and work of Dr. Vincent Guinn. While single-assassin theorists cite Guinn as the expert on bullet-lead analysis, and endlessly tout that he testified before the HSCA that a bullet fragment reportedly removed from Connally’s wrist most probably came from the magic bullet found on a stretcher, few have actually studied Guinn's results or read his numerous articles. If they had, they wouldn't be so supportive. Until I wrote about Guinn's research in chapter 4c of this webpage, for example, very few realized that Guinn's earlier work for the Atomic Energy Commission undercut the likelihood that Oswald had even fired a rifle.

Still, on what basis can a layman as myself question the findings of a nuclear physicist?

Well, without even going into the substantial circumstantial evidence indicating that the bullet supposedly found on Connally’s stretcher after falling from his leg was, in fact, found on someone else’s stretcher (as per the hospital employees who discovered it—Darrell Tomlinson and Nathan Pool), was never seen until at least an hour after Connally had been rushed into the hospital (as per the nurses and orderlies who removed Connally’s clothes and wheeled away his stretcher—Doris Nelson, Ruth Standridge, Jane Wester, and R. J. Jimison) and never lodged in his leg (as per Connally’s doctor, Dr. George Shires), there is reason to doubt Guinn’s results proved what so many believe. (An alternative explanation for the bullet’s presence on the stretcher appears with the next slide)

If one looks at Guinn’s results, one realizes there is a surprising lack of uniformity in the make-up of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets, both from bullet to bullet and box to box. This is because the type of ammunition used in the gun believed to be Oswald’s was made from the melted-down lead of other bullets. When one looks even closer at Guinn’s analysis, one finds that his interpretation of his test results leaves even more to be desired. Since Guinn believed that similar counts in parts per million of certain elements could leave an identifiable fingerprint of exact bullets, and that antimony, silver, and copper were the most reliable of these elements, let’s make a comparison between three sets of bullets on these elements, and Guinn’s subsequent conclusions.

Numbers reflect the counts of the two samples in parts per million.

A vs. B. 647-602 antimony, 8.6-7.9 silver, and 44-40 copper.

C vs. D, 833-797 antimony, 9.8-7.9 silver, and 994-58 copper.

E vs. F, 732-730 antimony, 15.9-15.3 silver, and 23-21 copper.

So which two samples were described by Guinn as being from the same bullet?

Well, that's actually a trick question, as A vs. B actually represents FOUR samples, a fragment found in Kennedy's brain, two fragments found on the floor of the limousine, and the nose of the bullet found on the front seat. And yet notice how uniform they seem to be. One might actually conclude they are probably from the same bullet. And Guinn did. Well, since they were so uniform and since Guinn also concluded the wrist fragments came from the magic bullet, then E vs. F must be the comparison between the magic bullet and the wrist fragment, right?

WRONG. E vs. F is a comparison between 6001B and 6003A, test bullets taken from separate batches of ammunition from separate years. Subsequent tests showed them to be quite dissimilar.

Which leaves C vs. D as the wrist/magic comparison. Since the silver and copper ranges are substantial, it's safe to say Guinn's conclusion came purely from the similarity on antimony. He ignored everything else and focused on those two numbers...833-797. And yet, when one looks at the test results, one finds that 6002 A2 was at 869, and 6001 B4 was at 791, within 36 ppm of the magic bullet and the wrist fragment, respectively, and this out of only 40 tests beyond the magic bullet and wrist fragment. This translates to there being a 5% chance for the wrist and magic fragments to fall within 36 ppm randomly. Of the 14 different bullets tested from assorted boxes of Western Cartridge ammunition, in fact, 3, 6000a, 6001d, and 6001A, were within 15 ppm on antimony, even though they were from different years and different batches. This reduces the 833-797 numbers to nothing near the relevance Guinn and such disciples as Kenneth Rahn attach to it. When one takes into account the other six elements tested, in fact, the logical deduction is amazingly the opposite of Guinn's ...that it's highly probable the magic bullet and the wrist fragment ARE NOT related.

A comparison of ranges of the 4 fragments found in the limousine vs. the magic bullet/wrist fragment on the 7 elements tested by Guinn:

Antimony: 4 fragments 647-602, magic/wrist 833-797

Silver: 4 fragments 8.6-7.9, magic/wrist 9.8-7.9

Copper: 4 fragments 44-40, magic/wrist 994-58

Aluminum: 4 fragments 5.5-1.1, magic/wrist 8.1-0

Manganese: 4 fragments 0.1-0.01, magic/wrist 0.09-0.07

Sodium: 4 fragments 134-9, magic/wrist 120-5

Chlorine: 4 fragments 59-22, magic/wrist 257-19

Since the range of 2 related samples should be smaller than the range of 4 related samples (7 out of 8 times), and since the range difference should usually be significant, it's clear that manganese is the only element that suggests the magic bullet and wrist fragment are related, and that antimony and sodium are also consistent with that analysis. It's equally obvious that the other 4 elements tested are strongly suggestive there was NO relation at all between the two, as the range of the 2 samples is many times that of the 4. The proper conclusion then should be that the magic bullet and the wrist fragment are most probably not related. This conclusion is supported by the additional fact that CE 399, while missing some lead, is not believed to have lost any size-able amount of copper. As both Connally’s coat by his exit wound and the wrist fragments themselves were found to contain inordinate amounts of copper, one should conclude he was struck by a separate bullet whose jacket had been badly damaged. In short, anyone whose argument for the single bullet theory relies on Guinn's analysis has clearly never studied Guinn's results with an open mind. His conclusion was wrong; whether he sincerely believed his testimony or was asked to lie is open to conjecture.

While I had not planned on engaging in such conjecture, recent developments in bullet lead analysis have alerted me to much that is suspicious with Guinn’s analysis, beyond his incorrect conclusions. On September 1, 2005, the FBI announced they would discontinue the use of bullet lead matching. Their decision was spurred on by a February 2004 report by the National Academy of Sciences questioning the value of bullet lead analysis, particularly in light that it had never been tested by scientists outside those whose careers depended on its presumed worth, including Vincent Guinn. Surprisingly, this study was performed by the Academy on behalf of the FBI itself, after a former FBI metallurgist named William Tobin began writing articles critical of the probative value of bullet lead analysis. Shockingly, this study spurred one-time HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey, the man who pushed Guinn's findings on the House Committee, to reverse himself and publicly denounce Guinn's findings as "junk science." Among the reports written by Mr. Tobin and members of the Academy, I found at least three good reasons to be even more suspicious of Guinn.

1. Although bullet lead analysis was conducted by the FBI for over 30 years, the FBI would not allow its employees to testify beyond that a bullet (usually found within a body) was likely to have come from the same box of bullets as was found somewhere else (usually in the home of a suspect). The FBI's Cortlandt Cunningham, then Chief of the Firearms section of the FBI Crime Lab, testified in court on February 24, 1977, only months before Guinn's tests, that his agents could only testify that a bullet "could have come from that source or another source with that same composition" and could not identify a fragment as having come from a particular bullet. Guinn’s testimony that it was “highly probable” the wrist fragments and the magic bullet were parts of the same bullet is therefore perhaps the only time in history someone has testified to such a degree. Since the National Academy has now found that “The available data do not support any statement that a crime bullet came from, or is likely to have come from, a particular box of ammunition,” and that the possible existence of coincidentally indistinguishable bullets “should be acknowledged in the laboratory report and by the expert witness” it would seem apparent that Guinn’s expert opinion went well above and beyond what was warranted.

2. While Guinn said his opinion was based on the results of three elements, antimony, silver, and copper, the FBI at that time was using antimony, copper, and arsenic. Even when Guinn expanded his test to seven elements, arsenic was not included. This forces one to consider the possibility that Guinn tested arsenic, found it did not match, and excluded it from his results. Since silver, which the FBI started using as one of its seven elements in 1990, is reported to have little value, as most bullets are within a small range in parts per million, and are considered to match, its propping up by Guinn as the second most valuable element is also intriguing. Perhaps, faced with the fact that copper failed to match, and being aware of how bad it would look if two out of the three elements he tested failed to match, Guinn simply picked an element that would help him make his case. I asked a prestigious metallurgist who’d helped me in the past if he knew of any good reason Guinn would use silver instead of arsenic, and have yet to receive an answer. The lack of value of silver as a determinant that two fragments have an identical source is made obvious by Guinn’s own results, where more than half of the test bullets matched the wrist fragment in silver, with many of them closer in parts per million than the “magic” bullet determined by Guinn to be identical.

3. It seems Guinn himself was skeptical of any conclusions based on only three elements. In 1970, a report for the Atomic Energy Commission prepared by Guinn and three other scientists concluded “two bullets with the same pattern of only three identification points are not usually definitively identified as having a common source, Matching concentrations of all three elements does not indicate that two bullets came from the same lot.” Since the FBI began using seven elements 20 years later, and since it was necessary for a bullet to match on all three elements tested up until that time, and all seven elements afterwards, before the FBI would even find that a bullet was likely to have come from the same box as another bullet, it seems clear that, due to the problems with copper, at no time in its history would the FBI have testified that the wrist fragments and the magic bullet matched. In fact, when given the opportunity to do so, in 1964, the FBI ruled their tests inconclusive and kept them from the public. The question then is not only why did Guinn testify in the manner he testified, in contradiction to his previous reports and the accepted standards of the FBI, but whether the FBI was deliberately removed from the process.

Should one suspect I'm exaggerating the vast divide between Guinn's methodology and that of the FBI's crime lab, one need but read The Basis for Compositional Lead Comparisons, an article by Charles Peters of the FBI's Materials Analysis Unit, published in the July, 2002 issue of Forensic Science Communications, and available on the FBI's website. Peters explains: "Years of analysis in the FBI Laboratory have demonstrated that the distinctiveness of a melt is defined not only by the number of elements measured but also by the relative scarcity of other alloys in that melt. Not all measured elements are equally effective at discriminating among lead sources, however. In general, for most lead products, the relative source discrimination power of the measured elements decreases in the following order: copper, arsenic, antimony, bismuth, and silver (Peele et al. 1991). Tin is not included in this list because in many lead sources it is not present at detectable levels. However, when tin is present, it provides excellent discrimination among melts of lead. Antimony, specified by the ammunition manufacturers, is alloyed with lead in order to harden the bullets. The other elements are present in trace amounts and can vary from one product to another." Note that Peters considers both copper, which Guinn found did not match, and arsenic, which Guinn inexplicably failed to test, more reliable indicators than antimony, which Guinn upheld as the only element that mattered. From this it seems clear that, should they have been forced to testify, and encouraged to tell the truth, the FBI's crime lab employees would have told the HSCA that the stretcher bullet and wrist fragments did not match, and that the single-bullet theory, which their former Director J. Edgar Hoover never believed anyhow, was bunkum. This brings us back to the question of why Guinn and Guinn alone was called.

Should one think I'm being a nit-picker in the paragraphs above, and assume that Guinn had found his own reasons not to trust arsenic as an indicator, and his own reasons to think a single match was sufficient to pronounce that two fragments were highly probable to have come from the same source, one should read the words of Guinn himself, published both before and after his stint as HSCA consultant. In Forensic Neutron Activation Analysis of Bullet Lead Specimens, a report co-written by Guinn in 1970, arsenic was one of the three elements tested. In Nuclear Analytical Methods in the Life Sciences, a book co-written by Guinn and published in 1991, Guinn asserts "Applications of the NAA method in the field of forensic chemistry--such as the detection of primer gunshot residue (detecting barium and antimony), and the analysis of evidence specimens of bullet lead and shotshell pellets (for Sb, As, Ag, Cu, and Sn)--are special to the author and used on a large scale in the investigation of gunshot homicide criminal cases, especially by the FBI Laboratory. In 1977, as part of the reinvestigation of the President Kennedy assassination, the author's reanalysis of all the bullet-lead evidence specimens, by INAA, produced decisive results." Hmmm. Note that Guinn here lists five elements--antimony, arsenic, silver, copper, and tin--that can be tested, and that they seem to be in order of importance, with antimony first and tin last, after silver and then copper. Note also that arsenic is listed second. Now, ain't that peculiar... Even more peculiar is that while Guinn tested the Kennedy assassination bullet-lead evidence for seven elements, he failed to test the Kennedy assassination bullet-lead evidence for both arsenic and tin, two of the five elements he would later claim most relevant. In Guinn's chapter in Activation Analysis Vol. 2, published 1990, moreover, he spelled out that the content of bullet lead impurities normally ranges from 1 to 100 ppm for silver, 1 to 1500 ppm for copper, 1 to 2000 ppm for tin, and 1 to 2500 ppm for arsenic. This suggests that the likelihood of random matches for arsenic and tin was much less than the likelihood of random matches for silver, and slightly less than copper.(The levels of copper in the stretcher bullet and wrist fragment, of course, didn't match). This leads me to suspect it's possible Guinn did test arsenic and tin, but didn't like his results, and flushed them down the memory hole. While ultimately bragging that his tests produced "decisive results" Guinn didn't, after all, tell us what decision these results helped produce.

Elsewhere in Guinn's chapter in activation Analysis Vol.2 , the arsenic poisoning of his credibility becomes positively lethal. While discussing the best way to test bullet lead, he proposes that one first test his three favorites (antimony, silver, and copper). He then states: "If this fast method clearly shows that none of the victim specimens match any of the specimens associated with a suspect, in elemental composition, no further analyses are needed. However, if one or more of the victim specimens appears to match one or more of the suspect samples, an additional analysis is called for...to add a fourth element (AS-arsenic) to the comparison." He then discusses other elements that can be tested, including tin, and then pronounces "If one is to conclude that two BL (bullet lead) or SSP specimens "match" one another to the extent that, to a high degree of probability, they had a common lead-melt origin, they must "match" one another in their concentrations of each of a number of elements measured to a respectable precision, and not exhibit any significant mismatches... For a variety of reasons, it is presently not possible to calculate a numerical probability that any two specimens had a common lead-melt origin. Instead, assuming that they do not mismatch in any element, but only match one another in one or two measured elements, one usually merely states that they might have had a common origin; with three matching elements, that they probably had a common origin; and with four, five, or six matching elements, that there is a very high probability (approaching "certainty") that they had a common origin." Later, in this chapter, Guinn trumpets that his bullet lead testing procedures have "been used to advantage in many hundreds of criminal cases...including some very well known cases (e.g. the President John F. Kennedy assassination)." Sorry, but I have to ask--to whose advantage, exactly?

Yes, it is clear from Guinn's own writings that his conclusions re the wrist fragment and magic bullet are in error. By his own standards, the best he could have said was that the fragment and wrist bullet "might have had a common origin." He should have, according to his own writings, tested the items for arsenic and tin before coming to even that conclusion, and have come to a NEGATIVE conclusion should either one of them failed to match. That he did not or at least claims he did not test the fragments for these elements is undoubtedly suspicious. I hereby call on those supposedly believing in the veracity of Guinn's findings to help clear up this suspicion, and begin pushing for additional testing of these fragments. Their failure to do so will only reveal their lack of faith in Guinn's work.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Duh, Ray, an advanced degree in physics simply means that one has a large knowledge of scientific experimentation and the scientific method.

Finally, please explain to us your Fredonia talk on NAA and how that beat to the punch the Randich-Grant and Spiegelman-Tobin studies. Where did you get your background in metallurgy and statistics and bullet lead analysis?

It was a simple matter of LOGIC.

As was explained, several years after my Fredonia presentation, by a Federal Judge in CHICAGO.

http://www.daubertontheweb.com/mikos.pdf

The judges ruling in the MIKOS case has since been followed by courts

Throughout the land.

Exactly as I predicted at Fredonia.

Edited May 29, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray:

I asked you for your analysis of the faults in Lead-bullet methodology. You referred me to a prediction about whether or not it would be struck down by the courts. Not the same.

Actually Jim it is ONE AND THE SAME.

The courts rejected Guinn's theory, as I predicted, because IT HAD NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS.

BTW, I am pretty sure about this: was the JFK case the first time the FBI used NAA in a murder case?

Yes, Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis was SPECIALLY INVENTED by Dr, Guinn to deal with

the allegation that 399 was planted. Sadly, the FBI continued to use CBLA,

and some 500 convictions have been thrown in doubt by the court's ruling in Mikos,

which has since been followed by courts in several states.

CBLA (pronounced CABLA or, as I prefer, CABLA-CADABLA)is one one of a number of JUNK SCIENCE theories developed in an effort

to pin the murder of JFK on an innocent man.

Among the other JUNK SCIENCE theories we have the JET EFFECT and the acoustics.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray:

Acoustics is anything but "junk science".

As applied to the JFK dictabelt by the HSCA experts, it has been

declared junk by the National Academy of Science.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Glad you amended your statement.

Now it makes sense.

Jim,

Tell me, had he not ammended it, couldn't you have just claimed that he did and then run away from him every time he called you out on it.

Todd