Scientists Cast Doubt on Kennedy (Assassination) Bullet Analysis

Source: WashPost

In a collision of 21st-century science and decades-old conspiracy theories, a research team that includes a former top FBI scientist is challenging the bullet analysis used by the government to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot the two bullets that struck and killed President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

The "evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed," concludes a new article in the Annals of Applied Statistics written by former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A&M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman and William D. James.

The researchers' re-analysis involved new statistical calculations and a modern chemical analysis of bullets from the same batch Oswald is purported to have used. They reached no conclusion about whether more than one gunman was involved, but urged that authorities conduct a new and complete forensic re-analysis of the five bullet fragments left from the assassination in Dallas.

"Given the significance and impact of the JFK assassination, it is scientifically desirable for the evidentiary fragments to be re-analyzed," the researchers said.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html

Arlen analyzed this carefully and determined that oswald was the one and only.
One and Only.
And the bullet went thisaway and thataway as bullets are prone to do.

This is not a "collision" (which implies disagreement) between conspiracy theories and 21st century science. The article says that scientists are suggesting that the conspiracy theories may be correct.

Noun

1.collusion - secret agreement arrangement, agreement - the thing arranged or agreed to; "they made arrangements to meet in Chicago"

2.collusion - agreement on a secret plot or connivance
agreement - the verbal act of agreeing
cahoots - collusion; "in cahoots with"

I read collusion instead of collision!

:evilgrin:

Sure looks (to my tired old eyes) like the good spooks are pulling ahead of the bad spooks in the not-so-civil-war in the halls of shadow governance.

Although he probably wouldn't have shot if he couldn't hit the face.

need to be hauled in

investigation.

This is really an "nothing new here" article.

This is scientific evidence that says a second shooter CANNOT be ruled out - while the government's CT insists this bullet absolutely ruled out any second shooter, case closed, it was Oswald.

This is evidence that, if Oswald was on trial, would have gotten him aquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt.

The only thing surprising to me about this is that the bullet did not disappear decades ago.

It doesn't say that a second shooter CANNOT be ruled out, it says that the original findings were flawed inasmuch as their conclusions need to be reexamined. It goes on to say that no conclusions have been made. That means no evidence of a second shooter and no evidence of a cover up, yet.

People holding this up as a holy grail will, in most likelihood, might need to start getting used to the taste of crow when the study is completed.

None, NONE, of the "evidence" in the case would have held up in a court of lay for one minute. It would not have gotten as far as a trial in fact.

The chain of possession was broken on everything: the multiple rifles that were "found" in the book depository, the "autopsy" photos, the tissue samples, the body--illegally stolen at gunpoint from the area of jurisdiction (Parkland hospital in Texas where the doctors are civilians and don't have to follow orders) to DC (Bethesda naval hospital) where the doctors have to follow officer's orders).

This case would have been thrown out of any little backwater court of law for lack of credible evidence. But it was good enough for the Warren Commission's purposes, which was to rubber stamp the hastily prepared FBI report. This cover-up is actually documented in the infamous memo from deputy Attorney General LBJ aide Bill Moyers at the White House:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-82555/124-10010-10135/html/124-10010-10135_0002a.htm

To summarize, Katzenbach tells Moyers:
"1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat--too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.

Katzenbach, whose memo sets out the Warren report results a year before the commission reached them, suggests that a "Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel" be appointed to examine evidence and reach conclusions. In closing he writes,

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."
http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/assassinations/jfk/policoff-stone-JKF.htm

"Well, DUH..."

...more than one gunman. I would suspect that, assuming Kennedy was killed by communist haters as often theorized, over Cuba and the Bay of Pigs, that Oswald, who had lived in the Soviet Union for a while, was just an additional target. People who had their businesses nationalized or run out of Cuba by Castro included Bush family members, (sugar business)and other mafia style criminals running casinos and who knows what else.

Here is the last paragraph of the article in the Post.

"This finding means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have come from three or more separate bullets," the researchers said. "If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely," the researchers said. If the five fragments came from three or more bullets, that would mean a second gunman's bullet would have had to strike the president, the researchers explained.

does the fact that they're using modern equivalents of 40 year old bullets to come to these conclusions strike anyone as odd?

"Tobin, Spiegelman and James said they bought the same brand and lot of bullets used by Oswald and analyzed their lead using the new standards. The bullets from that batch are still on the market as collectors' items."

What a waste of time -- trying to get to the bottom of who assassinated JFK. I mean, it's been so many years, who cares?

It was just a murder that changed the entire course of history. Who cares who did it, and why?

It seems that some obnoxious people are so stubborn, they just won't be satisfied until they know the truth.

Nutjobs!

Next thing you know we'll find out that WE WERE LIED TO ABOUT 9/!! ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE (Duh!).

:sarcasm:

I love you.

Why do you hate JFK, why do you hate what happened on 9/11??? :rofl: :rofl: :hi:
:sarcasm:

...

Reading the Article all it is saying is that the statement that the TESTS involving the lead content of the bullets shows that the bullets and fragments of bullets were from the same batch of bullets is NOT good science. In simple term using the BULLETS LEAD CONTENT as PROOF that the Bullets were from the same BATCH of Bullets that Oswald owned is bad science.

Does this Prove that the bullets were fired by different weapons? NO. ALL of the bullets and the fragments of bullet could have been fired from the same weapon. It is also possible for the bullets to have come from different weapons if the SOLE TEST SUPPORTING SUCH A FINDING IS THE LEAD CONTENT OF THE FRAGMENTS AND BULLETS (i.e. just because this test is invalid does NOT invalidate any other test that shows these bullets and fragments came from the same weapon).

In simple term, this does NOT undo the single bullet theory, but it does undo using lead content of bullets as evidence to support the single bullet theory.

for an otherwise routine article, why am I not suprised...


oh yeah, its the Washington Post.