Metallurgical Logic
A valid scientific argument has three parts: a statement
of the explanation for a proposed problem (a hypothesis), data to back it up and
exclude other explanations, and conclusions drawn from this data. This
metallurgical argument is different, however. It contains only the first and
third parts: an "explanation" and then the same explanation repeated at the end
as though it supports the first part. But it can't really support the first part, because it is just repeating
it. There is a gaping hole where the second part, the
supporting data, should be. The jump to the conclusions and over the lack of
supporting data amounts to a leap of faith clothed in the garb of a scientific
argument—a belief rather than a proof. But it
is stated as though it had been proven, and therein lies a big part of the
problem.
This metallurgical logic is just a "coulda, woulda, shoulda" argument. Reduced to its simplest form, it goes
something like this:
(1) MC lead has a crystalline microstructure that
concentrates low-concentration elements at the borders of the crystals.
(2) This will make small fragments vary in their
concentrations of antimony (and other elements), depending on which
part of the crystal they came from.
(3) The small fragments from the JFK assassination vary in
antimony and copper (and other elements).
(4) Therefore, they are reflecting the crystalline structure.
(5) These microscale variations destroy Guinn's two groups of
fragments and all the conclusions drawn from them.
There two fatal problems to this argument. (1) It is
incomplete because it proposes an explanation without offering any supporting
data for it. (2) It does not acknowledge at least two sets of data that are
inconsistent with its case. (a) The lack of covariation of antimony and copper
in MC lead is inconsistent with those required by their explanation. (b) The
actual trend in variability (of antimony) with size of fragments is the opposite
of that predicted by their explanation. These problems nullify the metallurgical part of the paper. They are considered on separate pages.
In closing, the
Rahn-Sturdivan approach is reviewed. It
remains the operative explanation for the fragments and their importance to the
JFK case.
The following sections give the specifics of these points.