Alleged Claims of Rahn/Sturdivan

Claim: Supporters of the NAA have to claim that WCC/MC lead is homogeneous in order to be able to match fragments.
Response: False. Supporters don't claim this, and it is not necessary.

Claim: We claim that WCC/MC bullets are fundamentally different from all other bullets.
Response: False. We show the data that shows them to differ significantly from data reported for most other bullets. No one ever said *all* other bullets. This is a convenient distortion that creates a strawman argument.

Claim: We claimed that we needed homogeneity of WCC/MC lead in order to match fragments.
Response: False. We know that WCC/MC lead is heterogeneous. We only need reasonable homogeneity on reasonably small scales, given how jacketed bullets break.

Claim: We are trying to use two small samples out of CE 399's entire core to define its homogeneity.
Response: False. Since it is jacketed, samples for potential matching could only have come from the small amount of lead extruded at the base.

Claim: We do not know that the wrist fragment came from the bottom of CE 399, where Guinn took his comparison sample.
Response: False. It's the only place on the bullet that it could have come from, and the probability is only 3% (at most) that it came from another bullet.

Claim: Ken's argument about CE 399 and the wrist is a classic circular argument.
Response: False. It is a straightforward argument built on pieces of independent evidence.

Claim: Ken is in love with a speculative description of Carcano metallurgy posited by Larry Sturdivan.
Response: False. Ken recognizes the actual measurements on MC lead. There is no need to speculate on the reason for them, although the reasons are nice to know.

Claim: The foundation of the Rahn/Sturdivan argument is the uniqueness of MC bullets.
Response: False. The true foundation is the observed properties of MC bullets, which are not explained by Randich's metallurgy.

Claim: People from outside the JFK circle just shake their heads at Rahn/Sturdivan's claims.
Response: Irrelevant. The actual data show that RS are right.

Claim: NAA is the "queen of analytical chemistry."
Response: False. We said that the data from the NAA are the queen of the physical evidence in the JFK case. Big difference.

Claim: Pure lead is a tough sample to analyze for trace elements.
Response: Irrelevant. Not for NAA.

Back to Followers