Result: Two clear groups, each with one big fragment and one or two little ones. Positive evidence for two and only two bullets, both fired from Oswald’s rifle.

Slide 10

The Two Groups Are Distinct.

Tests of Distinctness

1. The samples.

Slide 14

2. Means and standard deviations of the groups

Expanded view—means differ by 8 σ.

3. Test significance of means.

Find underlying distribution of Sb in WCC/MC bullets

Try Gaussian (Normal) First

Not a normal distribution—too skewed

Try Lognormal Distribution

Lognormal distribution works fine.

Fragments from assassination fall with the others.

Testing the means

Same Answer With Normal Distribution

4. General Linear Model analysis

"Assumes no underlying distribution."

Significance of Distinct Groups

"All fragments from Oswald’s rifle"

Slide 30

"No fragments or cartridge cases..."

For anyone who doubts the forward head snap…

"Predicts proper speed of forward..."

"Renders locations of entrance and..."

"Renders location of JFK’s back..."

"Renders offset of holes in..."

"Leads to best shooting scenario"

"Brings Oswald much closer to..."

Two Bullets From Oswald’s Rifle Did It All.

The Improbability Of Conspiracy Theories

One Random Match

Two Random Matches

Five Random Matches

In Other Words, All Popular Conspiracy Theories Eliminated Mathematically

Recent Objections by Stu Wexler

George A. Miller, Harvard University, “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information,” in The Psychological Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, March 1956.

Examples of his harsh statements on the NAA and our procedures

"11/30/2002,"

"11/28/2003,"

Stu’s core objections to the JFK NAA and why they are wrong

They are based on the 2004 report
Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence
by the Committee on Scientific Assessment of Bullet Lead Elemental Composition Comparison, National Research Council of the National Academies

Brief Summary of The Report

Stu’s objections center on:

The Viability of CABL

Stu: “Vincent P. Guinn’s legacy is essentially going down the toilet.” aaj, 11/21/2003

NAS Committee Member (February 2004): “This [report] should not affect Vince’s legacy.”

Stu: “…at it’s more recent incarnation, the requirement is at *least* 7 elements.” (8/25/2004, aaj)

NAS Report, p. 20: “Although little power to detect matches would be lost if Ag or Bi were dropped from the analytical procedure, using ICP-OES, no time or effort would be saved by measuring five rather than seven elements.”

Slide 56

The Scenarios

The JFK Equivalent To CABL

The Bullet Leads

“CABL assumes that a ‘source’ of bullet lead is homogeneous.”

The NRC report gives tables to back up this claim of homogeneity.

Within-Bullet Variations Are
Very Small

Within-bullet variabilities are only a few percent

Slide 64

Variations within larger masses are also very small.

"Wires,"

"Pigs,"

Report gives data for these larger masses

Bullet-to bullet variabilities are still only a few percent

Larger masses (melts or lots) become distinguishable, however.

Lot-to-lot variabilities can be greater

But WCC/MC bullets are qualitatively different.

Slide 74

Slide 75

Contrast between CABL and MC lead

Stu ignores this huge difference.

He mocks the idea that MC bullets are different.

"11/30/2003,"

Stu on randomness of bullets:

The Reality Of Randomness

Slide 82

This extremely important result:

Furthermore: The lognormal distribution of Sb in the MC bullets is the same distribution as the default case used by the NRC panel and others:

"p."

Summary of Stu’s claims:

The reason for Stu’s harsh campaign:

Stu’s scenario in part

"Second hit was to JBC’s..."

"Second shooter from the rear..."

What Stu needs

So Stu invokes an accidental match from an undiscovered third bullet from an undiscovered second MC rifle fired by an undiscovered second shooter.

This theory has weak evidence (witness reactions, etc.) driving strong evidence (NAA).

All Stu’s claims are wrong.

"There is no reason to..."

Final point—Our alleged inability to pass peer-review

Ken, 7/07/2004, aaj: “You have stated bluntly in the last sentence that I cannot get published in a peer-reviewed journal, and you have stated that several times before. So if Larry and I do indeed get our papers published in peer-reviewed journals, will you publicly retract these previous statements and admit that you were wrong?”

"Stu replies,"

Our Two Peer-Reviewed Articles

They contain:

I don’t know what Stu will say today, but…

If he says that CABL is dead:

If he says that Guinn’s reputation has gone down the toilet:

If he says that you can’t get a valid distribution from 14 bullets:

If he says that MC bullets are no different from the others:

If he says that you can’t eliminate an accidental match from a third bullet:

If he says that Tom Pinkston’s analysis of 10 bullets from a single MC lot destroys Larry’s distribution:

If he says that we can never get published:

If he says that Oswald was unlucky enough to use super-special ammunition:

Stu has failed on his great quest. The NAA remains untouched

Thank you!

President John F. Kennedy