Rahn/Sturdivan's Behavior
Claim: Larry Sturdivan also speaks for Ken Rahn.
Response: False. Larry has his own mind, although we agree on most
things.
Claim: We are both afraid to publicly face Randich and Grant because
they both have Ph.D.s.
Response: False. We have said repeatedly that science is not done in
public debates, especially in charged atmospheres.
Claim: We made errors in our papers because we didn't grasp the
relevant metallurgy.
Response: False on two counts. Our papers are not wrong, and metallurgy
is not necessary for getting the right answers about the fragments.
Claim: Rahn's declination to appear in public against Randich and
Grant doesn't help his reputation.
Response: Silliness. I gave my reasons, and Larry agreed with them.
Science isn't done by public debate.
Claim: Ken Rahn won't provide a substantive response to the
metallurgical claims in RG's paper.
Response: False. So much for trying to guess the future.
Claim: The only thing we accomplished was to stimulate others to try
to disprove us.
Response: False. We got the right answer first, and then we stimulated
others.
Claim: "Poor Ken and Larry never stood a chance."
Response: False. We got the right answer, and the new guys blew it.
Claim: Rahn did not name the "revisionists."
Response: True. We didn't have to.
Claim: Don't hold your breath for a detailed response from Rahn.
Response: False prediction. (a) It's here. (b) These things take time if
they are to be done right. Science should not be done in knee-jerk fashion.
Claim: Since we say the RG paper is so bad, will we be writing a
letter to the Journal of Forensic Science to set the record straight?
Response: Almost certainly. We may also request that the paper be
withdrawn.
Claim: Please explain the metallurgical expertise that Larry and I
have.
Response: We are not experts in metallurgy, but we don't have to be in
order to get the right answer. That is the good news.
Claim: Others can only trust your answers if you have proper
metallurgical credentials.
Response: False. The errors of Randich's metallurgical argument give the lie to that idea.
Claim: Our credentials need to be superior to those of Randich, Grant,
and Cliff Spiegelman (statistics) if we expect people to believe our findings.
Response: False. What is this thing about credentials all the time? They
are nice, but hardly definitive. There is more than one way to the right answer.
Claim: We need to explain the metallurgical basis for our conclusions.
Response: False. You need to know *how* the
elements vary in the lead. The *why* part is optional.
Claim: You need to know which experts in metallurgy back up what you say.
Response: False again. We can be right even if no metallurgical experts
back us up. That seems to be the case here.
Claim: Explain why the last two paragraphs in RG are wrong.
Response: Happy to do that. See this entire critique.
Claim: You need to circulate your response so that everyone can see
it.
Response: Right. That is why I am posting it on my Web site.
Claim: Ken will likely argue that the FBI data show that fragments
from close together in a bullet will have a lower overall analytical
uncertainty.
Response: Nonsensical. The writer evidently does
not understand "analytical uncertainty."
Claim: Erik Randich is a metallurgist of high repute, whereas
Rahn/Sturdivan are not.
Response: Irrelevant. (1) Credentials do not guarantee a correct
explanation. (2) Randich got the wrong explanation in spite of his credentials.
Claim: RG have no opinion on conspiracy, whereas Rahn/Sturdivan do.
Response: Irrelevant.
Claim: What are the chances that "Warren loyalists" and "anti-conspiracists"
Rahn and Sturdivan would agree to an open discussion with RG, etc.?
Response: Pure agitprop. We have given our reasons for declining many
times already.