From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: RE: PBS SPECIAL
Date: 5 JAN 93 09:54:50 PDT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: RIPPLE


In article <schuck.726112568@sfu.ca> Bruce Schuck writes:

>>	The silver in CE399 was 8.8 ppm, plus or minus .5 ppm.
>>	(there are limitations in the counting statistics)  The
>>	silver in CE842, the wrist fragments, was 9.8, plus or
>>	minus .5 ppm.  Thus, even if you abritarily decide that
>>	CE399 had 8.3 ppm and CE842 had 10.3 ppm, you still don't
>>	have a 25% difference.  Given the known and calculable
>>	physical limitations of the procedure, the fragments are
>>	a match.  "I was not able to distinguish between them"
>>	said Guinn.

>Do you have to make things up Joel?

	In other words, once again you are resorting to the worst
	sort of ad hominem attack, effectively calling me a 
	liar.  This is, to put it mildly, "badmouthing."

	But I won't take it too personally, since you imply the same
	about Dr. Guinn himself by saying that he arbitrarily
	discarded those trace elements that aren't actually 
	important for NAA analysis of bullet lead.
	
>Do you have to badmouth Kurtz while making things up to get you point
>across?

	What I said was that Kurtz was a useless and irrelevant
	source to cite in opposition to Dr. Guinn's analysis.
	For that matter, so are you and so would be I or any
	other amateur.  If you believe, a priori, that Guinn
	is wrong, you might try (as I have repeatedly suggested)
	looking for an opposing expert to support your views.

	It is hardly unusual to see a Battle of the Experts in
	courtroom situations.  Happens all the time.  What one
	expert witness says, another tries to refute and vice-versa.
	But they don't call in Paul Kurtz or Joel Grant or Bruce
	Schuck in opposition to the testimony of radioanalytical
	scientists.  Get it?  You might pause to ask yourself who
	I am actually criticizing when I say you are citing a
	useless and irrelevant source to support your argument.
	You?  Or the source?
	
	Now it happens that I have been trying for more than 25
	years to find expert testimony in opposition to the
	generally cited forensic experts in this case.  And that
	includes trying to find someone, anyone, with the ability
	to truly independently analyze Guinn's results who has
	criticized his methods or his findings. 

	Having read about a half-dozen peer-reviewed technical
	papers, plus general articles on neutron activation
	analysis I can tell you that so far, I have found none
	of Guinn's professional peers who even raise a yawn at
	what he did in the JFK case.  I shall nevertheless keep
	looking and, again, advise you to do the same.

	But don't expect me to be impressed with yours or Kurtz's
	counter-"analysis", as it is truly useless and irrelvant.

>I posted this table a long time ago:


>This table of data is taken from the HSCA Vol 1 pp 538
>study of Neutron Activation Analysis.

>It compares the magic bullet CE399, with the fragments
>taken from John Connally.

>CE399 = "pristine bullet"
>CE842 = "Connally Wrist Fragments~

>The figures after the +/- are standard deviation

	A note here: they are standard deviation from only the
	counting statistics.  The full range of uncertainty is
	actually higher.  In the case of the antimony, the figure
	is about 50.  The "overlap" figures are actually 
	meaningless.  Guinn makes this point very, very clearly
	in his testimony.    

>Element/Fragm | CE399       |      CE842      |  Difference
>============================|=================|================
>Lead %        | 101 +/- 4   |   104 +/- 2     |  None - overlap
>--------------|-------------|-----------------|----------------
>Antimony  ppm | 833 +/- 9   |   797 +/- 7     |  5.3 % - no overlap
>--------------|-------------|-----------------|----------------
>Silver    ppm | 7.9 +/- 1.4 |   9.8 +/- .5    |  25 % - just barely overlap
>--------------|-------------|-----------------|----------------
>Copper    ppm | 58  +/- 3   |   994 +/- 7     |  850 % - no overlap
>--------------|-------------|-----------------|----------------
>Aluminum  ppm | 0   +/- 0   |   8.1 +/- 1.4   |  Immense 
>--------------|-------------|-----------------|----------------
>Manganese ppm | .09 +/- .02 |   0.7 +/-  .02  |  22 % - no overlap
>--------------|-------------|-----------------|----------------
>Sodium    ppm | 5   +/- 1   |   120 +/- 4     |  2400 % - no overlap
>--------------|-------------|-----------------|----------------
>Chlorine  ppm | 19  +/- 12  |   257 +/- 14    |  1100 % - no overlap
>--------------|-------------|-----------------|----------------

>Within the standard deviation used by Guinn, there is no overlap
>in the antimony, and just barely an overlap in silver.

>But please note: CE842 has 25% more silver than CE399.

	Please note: the report Guinn submitted with his HSCA
	testimony was a preliminary report.  Please note: at
	the end of this report he cited 10 papers, previously
	published, as well as an 11th, *to be published.* 
	
	And so it occurred to me, as it should have occurred to you,
	that tracking down that article was the thing to do to get
	the most precisely calculated values.  I tracked it down and
	have given you (and everyone) the full citation. I would have
	had a major scoop had I found that Guinn had, upon 
	re-calculation from scratch, reversed his opinions.

	Why not read that peer-reviewed article and then come back
	and tell me I'm "making things up."

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk