Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was The HSCA's conclusion helpful to the case of certain 'Conspiracy Theories'


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

You seem to have missed Sandy's sound response.

Sandy didn't cite physical evidence, which is what Baker asked for.

Sandy posted sound conclusions not a rebuttal backed by physical evidence.

Works every time: In the face of the weaponized fact of conspiracy Nutters/CT Pet Theorists either blather gibberish (DiEugenio) or STFU (Baker).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

 

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Baker....is the self proclaimed scientist who tried to confuse matters by saying NAA was a very accurate measure, leaving out the fact that, [Neutron Activation Analysis] for bullet lead analysis, it have been thoroughly discredited.


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.


Jim, of course, is right about NAA being discredited for use in bullet lead analysis -- a forensics procedure called Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis (CLBA).

According to the Wikipedia article on the Single Bullet Theory:

"The technique used by Guinn to analyse the bullet lead from the JFK assassination was a form of what has become known as Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA). Until 2004 the FBI used this technique to determine whether a crime scene bullet lead sample came from a particular box of ammunition or a particular batch of bullets....

"However, the validity of CBLA was discredited in a 2002 paper ("A Metallurgical Review of the Interpretation of Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis") co-authored by [Erik] Randich and by former FBI Chief Metallurgist, William Tobin.

"The 2002 Tobin/Randich paper prompted the National Academy of Sciences .... to review the science of bullet lead analysis. In a report in 2004 the NAS found the scientific basis for matching bullet sources from the analysis of bullet lead composition as practiced by the FBI was flawed. As a result of that report, the courts appear to have stopped accepting this evidence and the FBI has stopped using bullet lead analysis for forensic purposes."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Jim, of course, is right about NAA being discredited for use in bullet lead analysis -- a forensics procedure called Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis (CLBA).

According to the Wikipedia article on the Single Bullet Theory:

"The technique used by Guinn to analyse the bullet lead from the JFK assassination was a form of what has become known as Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA). Until 2004 the FBI used this technique to determine whether a crime scene bullet lead sample came from a particular box of ammunition or a particular batch of bullets....

"However, the validity of CBLA was discredited in a 2002 paper ("A Metallurgical Review of the Interpretation of Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis") co-authored by [Erik] Randich and by former FBI Chief Metallurgist, William Tobin.

"The 2002 Tobin/Randich paper prompted the National Academy of Sciences .... to review the science of bullet lead analysis. In a report in 2004 the NAS found the scientific basis for matching bullet sources from the analysis of bullet lead composition as practiced by the FBI was flawed. As a result of that report, the courts appear to have stopped accepting this evidence and the FBI has stopped using bullet lead analysis for forensic purposes."

 

Here is a free copy of that scientific paper in PDF format: http://libgen.io/scimag/ads.php?doi=10.1016%2Fs0379-0738(02)00118-4&downloadname=

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baker is shameless.

When discussing the NAA in regards to the Kennedy assassination, we are discussing Guinn's use in Bullet lead analysis.  That whole aspect of forensic inquiry has been through and through shown to be completely unreliable and should have never been attempted.  It is nothing but junk science.  There is no grounding for it scientifically for more than one reason:  both chemically and statistically.

So what did Baker do:  he switches horses and now says, oh but NAA is used scientifically.  

Yes it is Mr. Scientist.  But not in any valid way for bullet lead analysis.  So its use in the JFK case to incriminate Oswald is simply and palpably false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

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.

I think it would have still looked like a gun case to her...

... of course, had what happened after not happened then she would have had no reason to tell her story. ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Baker is shameless.

When discussing the NAA in regards to the Kennedy assassination, we are discussing Guinn's use in Bullet lead analysis.  That whole aspect of forensic inquiry has been through and through shown to be completely unreliable and should have never been attempted.  It is nothing but junk science.  There is no grounding for it scientifically for more than one reason:  both chemically and statistically.

So what did Baker do:  he switches horses and now says, oh but NAA is used scientifically.  

Yes it is Mr. Scientist.  But not in any valid way for bullet lead analysis.  So its use in the JFK case to incriminate Oswald is simply and palpably false.

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:
17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Baker is shameless.

When discussing the NAA in regards to the Kennedy assassination, we are discussing Guinn's use in Bullet lead analysis.  That whole aspect of forensic inquiry has been through and through shown to be completely unreliable and should have never been attempted.  It is nothing but junk science.  There is no grounding for it scientifically for more than one reason:  both chemically and statistically.

So what did Baker do:  he switches horses and now says, oh but NAA is used scientifically.  

Yes it is Mr. Scientist.  But not in any valid way for bullet lead analysis.  So its use in the JFK case to incriminate Oswald is simply and palpably false.

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?


Oh please! You did exactly what Jim said you did. It's all up there for anybody to read.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Oh please! You did exactly what Jim said you did. It's all up there for anybody to read.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Baker said:

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.

-------------------------------

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.

Did you design, build, turn-up, test and commission one of these in your basement? Are you using information from real scientists and researchers? Why do you not cite any studies or data?

I would think that if it were valid science you would be able to cite its continued use, development, success in solving cases and its admissibility in court over the last 54 years. Why do you not?

 

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites

NAA info from 2010

http://forensic-science-fall-2010.wikispaces.com/Neutron+Activation+Analysis

"In the past, NAA evidence was not admissible into courts on the grounds that testimony it "proved" was not concrete enough to be allowed as evidence. In fact, a not-so-ancient trial involving NAA evidence, using trace element blood comparison samples was admitted into a lower court, despite the objection of the Defense. After being convicted, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, who declared the evidence inadmissible, as the technique was not yet proven. This was a large step backwards for NAA in courts, as it hurt the reliability of future, more concrete evidence done by neutron analysis."

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Baker is shameless.

When discussing the NAA in regards to the Kennedy assassination, we are discussing Guinn's use in Bullet lead analysis.  That whole aspect of forensic inquiry has been through and through shown to be completely unreliable and should have never been attempted.  It is nothing but junk science.  There is no grounding for it scientifically for more than one reason:  both chemically and statistically.

So what did Baker do:  he switches horses and now says, oh but NAA is used scientifically.  

Yes it is Mr. Scientist.  But not in any valid way for bullet lead analysis.  So its use in the JFK case to incriminate Oswald is simply and palpably false.

This fake debate is shameless.

The cover-up game plan: get people to argue over issues requiring an advanced college degree to verify.

Baker has conceded by his silence that the clothing evidence proves 2+ shooters.

That ballgame was over in 1966 with the Fonzi/Salandria demolition of Arlen Specter's SBT -- but so many "CTs" want to continue extra innings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

This fake debate is shameless.

The cover-up game plan: get people to argue over issues requiring an advanced college degree to verify.

I brought in the Supreme Court from the Bull Pen, and Baker wandered around the clubhouse for an hour before going home. And that was only 5PM in the UK so he can't claim that it was bed-time.

 

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I brought in the Supreme Court from the Bull Pen, and Baker wandered around the clubhouse for an hour before going home. And that was only 5PM in the UK so he can't claim that it was bed-time.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

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.

Paul, you have managed, there, to say nothing at all. At least you didn't expend a great deal of effort, time and words to accomplish that. I know people, who I love dearly, who can go on at length, an manage to say nothing at all.

Cheers, Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...