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 argumenta 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.

Back to Metallurgy