Scientists call for re-examination of JFK bullets, with apparent agenda

Former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A&M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman and William D. James claim the Kennedy assassination bullets need to be re-examined. However, they sound disingenuous in claiming they are just about science, rather than admitting they might favor a two-gunman theory, which is supported by, well…

NOTHING.

Here’s why they think the bullets need new analysis. The trio notes that the type of FBI analysis used in 1976 has been, if not “discredited,” shown to be less than adequate. Therefore, the use of that analysis to rule out a second gunman is flawed, they say:

Using new guidelines set forth by the National Academy of Sciences for proper bullet analysis, Tobin and his colleagues at Texas A&M re-analyzed the bullet evidence used by the 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations, which concluded that only one shooter, Oswald, fired the shots that killed Kennedy in Dallas.

The committee’s finding was based in part on the research of now-deceased University of California at Irvine chemist Vincent P. Guinn. He used bullet lead analysis to conclude that the five bullet fragments recovered from the Kennedy assassination scene came from just two bullets, which were traced to the same batch of bullets Oswald owned.

To do their research, 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.

They found that the scientific and statistical assumptions Guinn used — and the government accepted at the time — to conclude that the fragments came from just two bullets fired from Oswald's gun were wrong.

“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, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald.”

Now, there’s the problem I have. The scientists claim they aren’t promoting an assassination theory, but they throw that in at the end. I’m sorry, but by doing that, you undermine your credibility to me. Not totally; you’re working out of a legitimate scientific inquiry.

BUT, it seems pretty clear that a two-gunman theory is one of the drivers for your push to have the bullets re-analyzed.

And that is simply not good science.

And, as expected, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory wingnuts are already blogging away.