PATRICK COLLINS (AN "LNer") SAID:
Do you know if there [is] definitive agreement in the scientific community that establishes whether or not [Dr. Vincent] Guinn's analysis is correct or flawed? .... Personally I have always found this area to be a bit of a minefield.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I agree that it's kind of like a "minefield" when you talk about NAA
with conspiracy theorists.
As far as Dr. Vincent Guinn's NAA analysis, I'd have to say that
there's nothing "definitive" as far as his tests are concerned. Many
people still think his research on the bullet fragments is solid; many
do not.
I, myself, look at it this way (which I think is a good common-sense
approach, but others might disagree):
While I recognize that the science of "NAA" has been undermined and
spat upon by many people since Guinn's 1977-1978 tests (and I also
realize that the FBI has apparently stopped relying on such NAA tests
in criminal court proceedings...at least to a large degree)....I'd ask
any CTer to try to figure the odds of Guinn's "2 Bullets Only" NAA
data being totally WRONG even based on the 1970s data (which many
people think is not quite as definitive today).
IOW -- If there had REALLY been more than just Oswald's 2 bullets in
that mix of 5 bullet specimens examined by Dr. Guinn, what are the
chances (even via 1970s standards) that his ultimate conclusion would
be that JUST TWO BULLETS FROM LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S MANNLICHER-CARCANO were in that bullet mix?
It would have been incredible, indeed, for Guinn to have arrived at
such a "2 bullet" conclusion, even via '70s standards for such
determinations, IF many additional bullets (from NON-Carcano) guns had
been involved in the shooting of Kennedy and Connally (which is what
most CTers believe; with some CTers having a "Fireball" pistol being
used, plus a "Mauser", and God knows how many other non-MC guns).
Anyway, that's my take on the NAA (in a generalized nutshell).
For a really good article on the NAA controversy, I'd recommend this one
written by Ken Rahn.
Along similar lines with my thoughts (sort of), Vincent Bugliosi also
offers up these comments in his JFK book regarding NAA and Dr. Guinn:
"Even if the new findings [from 2002 to 2004, not the 2007 study] were to render NAA, and hence Guinn's conclusions, invalid, we DO know that the stretcher bullet was fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of ALL other weapons.
"Since THAT is definite, what is the likelihood that a bullet found on CONNALLY'S stretcher, which we know was fired from Oswald's gun, is not the same bullet that deposited its missing fragments in Connally's wrist? Next to nothing.
"In other words, when all is said and done, what difference does it make if it turns out that the NAA tests are completely invalid? But there is a more important point to be made. Let's not forget that the NAA conclusions by Guinn...are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with all the other evidence showing that Oswald was at the sniper's nest window and it was his Carcano rifle that fired the only bullets that hit Kennedy.
"This other, independent evidence necessarily increases the likelihood that Guinn's separate NAA conclusions are accurate." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 436-437 of the Endnotes in "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
David Von Pein
December 2007
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 21, 2007)
