Beyond Theory

[Paul Baker]

On 4/19/2019 at 2:05 AM, James DiEugenio said:

I am not a theorist. 

OTOH, someone who buys the Single Bullet Fantasy, Brennan, and  cannot decide if Randich and Grant showed that CBLA is a fraud--which even Blakey and the FBI have admitted--that person is living in a world of denial and junk science. 

A fantasist then?

And that term 'junk science' ... again. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Paul Baker

[James DiEugenio]

Baker, can you read?

I just said Single Bullet Fantasy. In reference to you!

You buy it because you have to.  So who is living a fantasy?

And yes, unless you have new information that somehow CBLA is going to be used by the FBI again in court, its junk science.  

Do you have such information that the FBI is going to do so?  I doubt it.  Know why?  Because when Randich testified the last time, after he was done, the judge threatened to charge the FBI witness with perjury. 

Since then, the FBI has not used it. They don't want to go to jail.

Again, if you have different info, please come up with it.  If not, I will consider this more of the same from you: gaseous drivel.

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Baker]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Baker, can you read?

I just said Single Bullet Fantasy. In reference to you!

You buy it because you have to.  So who is living a fantasy?

And yes, unless you have new information that somehow CBLA is going to be used by the FBI again in court, its junk science.  

Do you have such information that the FBI is going to do so?  I doubt it.  Know why?  Because when Randich testified the last time, after he was done, the judge threatened to charge the FBI witness with perjury. 

Since then, the FBI has not used it. They don't want to go to jail.

Again, if you have different info, please come up with it.  If not, I will consider this more of the same from you: gaseous drivel.

 

Hello Jim,

I really can't abide your ranting, raving tone. You've demonstrated time and time again that you cannot be reasoned or argued with, even in the face of the bleeding obvious. Black Op Radio, John McAdams? Case closed.

You're not qualified to describe NAA and CBLA as 'junk science', because it isn't. I don't care that the FBI won't use it in court. It is a viable, proven analytical technique, and just because you - and others - are incapable of interpreting its results doesn't make it invalid.

Stick to what you know, not what you think you know, Jim. And please, please, please, don't reply. I can't tolerate any more of your nonsense, ever.

Paul.

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Paul Baker said:

Hello Jim,

I

You're not qualified to describe NAA and CBLA as 'junk science', because it isn't. I don't care that the FBI won't use it in court. It is a viable, proven analytical technique, and just because you - and others - are incapable of interpreting its results doesn't make it invalid.

 

Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned^[1] forensic technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique elemental makeup.^[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_bullet-lead_analysis

 

 

as for NAA, we have the Supreme Court that says you are wrong, Paul

 

[Michael Clark]

On 2/19/2017 at 10:20 AM, Michael Clark said:

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."

 

[Cliff Varnell]

The NAA discussion is fake debate kept alive by cognitively impaired Lone Nutters and VichyCTs who can't absorb the fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3, rendering the whole phony "controversy" moot.

[Paul Baker]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

 

Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned^[1] forensic technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique elemental makeup.^[2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_bullet-lead_analysis

 

 

as for NAA, we have the Supreme Court that says you are wrong, Paul

 

I've read all of that stuff, and more besides. That it is has been discredited is due to the interpretation of the results it provides, and has nothing to do with its inherent credibility. NAA is real. It is being used. It works. Jim DiEugenio, as usual, discards it as 'junk science', primarily because he doesn't understand it, just like he discards anything that doesn't fit in with his warped world view.

27 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The NAA discussion is fake debate kept alive by cognitively impaired Lone Nutters and VichyCTs who can't absorb the fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3, rendering the whole phony "controversy" moot.

Yes, this is why I tend to avoid this forum these days. I'm cognitively impaired, am I? People like you worry me.

[Cliff Varnell]

21 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

 

Yes, this is why I tend to avoid this forum these days. I'm cognitively impaired, am I? People like you worry me.

We all suffer from confirmation bias, which leaves us all cognitively impaired.

Don't take it personally.  It happens to all of us.

In your case your LN True Belief impairs your ability to recognize JFK's T3 back wound.  Jim DiEugenio's ambition to be the #1 authority on JFK can't recognize the T3 back wound either, because to do so would deflate the significance of his CE399 analysis.

It's not personal, Sonny, it's strictly business.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Micah Mileto]

6 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

Hello Jim,

I really can't abide your ranting, raving tone. You've demonstrated time and time again that you cannot be reasoned or argued with, even in the face of the bleeding obvious. Black Op Radio, John McAdams? Case closed.

You're not qualified to describe NAA and CBLA as 'junk science', because it isn't. I don't care that the FBI won't use it in court. It is a viable, proven analytical technique, and just because you - and others - are incapable of interpreting its results doesn't make it invalid.

Stick to what you know, not what you think you know, Jim. And please, please, please, don't reply. I can't tolerate any more of your nonsense, ever.

Paul.

http://www.science.tamu.edu/news/story.php?story_ID=550

[James DiEugenio]

There are three citations above showing why CBLA has been discarded.  And Baker, in the face of all this, still insists he is right and somehow CBLA is not junk science.

Gary Aguilar wrote perhaps the best summary of why it has been discarded.  This was in a legal periodical, Federal Lawyer when Bugliosi's book came out. He based this info on a presentation made in SF by Rick Randich and Pat Grant. The two men who got the phony CBLA process thrown out of court with a judge who was about to charge an FBI agent unless the Bureau backed away from using this as evidence.

http://www.fedbar.org/Resources_1/Federal-Lawyer-Magazine/2007/The-Federal-Lawyer-NovemberDecember-2007/Departments/Book-Reviews.aspx?FT=.pdf

Just go to page 66 of the above article and Gary explains why its junk science based upon the Randich/ Grant presentation.  It is not difficult to understand.  And BTW, Grant knew Guinn, the guy who manufactured this phony test. With Gary's article, its very easy to see how flawed it was in its very underpinnings.  The incredible thing is that it was used for so long. Now, again, if Baker has new information that effectively counters what Gary wrote, or what Randich and Grant presented, then he should go to the FBI and tell them.  They then can go to the judge and show them how wrong he was to throw out the test  and the FBI will start using the test again. If he does not do this, then what are we to make of his protestations?

Baker reminds me a lot of Paul Hoch in this regard.  A guy who was supposed to be a scientist, but who stood by Alvarez and his phony melon experiment, and also abided by the CBLA for years after it had been discredited.  In both cases their standing by this junk science tells us more about Hoch and Baker than it does the scientific process.

BTW, is there any ranting and raving in my above post?  I don't detect it.  Gary Aguilar's article would not have been published in a legal journal had it contained any of that.

Is Baker now going to bring up Brennan next?

Edited April 24, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Baker]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

And Baker, in the face of all this, still insists he is right and somehow CBLA is not junk science.

Jim, I'm not sure if you're aware, or if I've mentioned this before, but I've already read all of that, and understand it. Nevertheless (one last time), NAA/CBLA cannot be described as junk science, simply because you (and others) don't understand it. Furthermore, you know nothing about the scientific process. That is patently obvious. The key phrase is highlighted below.

"Although it has since been abandoned because the results of the technique have been wrongly interpreted in legal cases and have led to wrongful convictions."

What was this thread supposed to about again? Before Jim went off on his tangent about CBLA (that tends to happen on the rare occasions that I bother to post here).

[James DiEugenio]

Now, do you want to explain about the wrong interpretations Paul?

Why and how were they arrived at?

[Ron Bulman]

When you have three reputable sources on the CBLA and NAA from experts in the field to the now less than supreme court, and others I believe, it becomes convincing that the theory might be true, or even proven to some.  Beyond Theory.  Useless in analysis of the JFK assassination.

[Ron Bulman]

Speaking of Beyond Theory.  There are multiple aspects.  

Oswald couldn't get from his rooming house on Beckley to where Tippit was shot to the Texas Theater in the time allotted by the Warren Omission.  Fact.  Proven by others elsewhere.  Don't believe me?  Look for yourself.  I'm not making it up.  It's not a theory that he could, somehow, it's a Fact he couldn't.

[James DiEugenio]

Ron, CBLA is worse than useless. As you can see by reading some analysis by informed people.  Besides the problems in segregation by the cooling process, besides the huge error Guinn made in his characterization of WCC MC ammo, he clearly cherry picked the elements he chose to quantify.

What makes this all even worse is that in a back up chart he did for the HSCA, he inadvertently proved he knew nothing about segregation in the cooling process--which BTW, Gary deals with quite well in his Federal Lawyer article.

Guinn used antimony as one of the key metal traces in the JFK case.  He said that well, a trace from JBC's wrist and from CE 399 are pretty close in ppm.  Only 36 ppm apart.

Now, if this was science one would expect that PPM differential to be fairly constant, especially if you are convicting someone in a murder case.

Its not.  Not even close.

In one bullet on his chart the PPM ranged as far as 304 ppm apart. Almost ten times the ratio.

In another it was over 600 ppm apart. WTF!

And one of the antimony levels in a sample bullet had 869 ppm, which was very close to the 833 antimony ppm in CE 399. In other words only 36  ppm apart.  Just like the JBC fragment.  Is this a match then with a bullet not ever involved, or even fired?  (Stewart Galanor, Cover up p. 43) 

We are supposed to think that no one on the HSCA saw this problem?  We are supposed to think Guinn missed it?

The truth is Guinn made a reputation for himself and a lot of money afterwards acting as a trial consultant.  They made between  1-2 K per day plus expenses in those days.

Unfortunately, there has been a lot of this in the JFK case.  

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by James DiEugenio