Experts Now Say JFK Bullet Analysis Was Wrong

Spy Handler writes "Researchers analyzing bullet fragments from the 1963 Kennedy assassination using new techniques say that the government's 1976 conclusion that the bullets came from only one gun (Oswald's) is wrong. 'Using new guidelines set forth by the National Academy of Sciences for proper bullet analysis, Tobin and his colleagues at Texas A&M re-analyzed the bullet evidence used by the 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations, which concluded that only one shooter, Oswald, fired the shots that killed Kennedy in Dallas. The committee's finding was based in part on the research of now-deceased University of California at Irvine chemist Vincent P. Guinn. He used bullet lead analysis to conclude that the five bullet fragments recovered from the Kennedy assassination scene came from just two bullets, which were traced to the same batch of bullets Oswald owned.'"

Comments

Re:Oh good grief

[drinkypoo]

SO you ahve completly closed your mind, well done.

I'm really not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but perhaps you should slow down next time you type one of your knee-jerk responses. It might make for a sentence containing less typos.

Any trained marksman could make that shot. It would be follish and risky to have a second shooter on the grassy knoll. More exposed, harder shot.

Yes, and any trained typist could have done a far better job with your comment.

Regardless, I'm open to the possibility that Harvey was the sole shooter, but obviously it hasn't been proven one way or another.

Re:Finally

[Dun Malg]

You've proven yourself to be a presumptuous and exceedingly smug too. Ever hear of compartmentalization? Yes. I dealt directly with compartmentalization when I was an intelligence analyst in the Army. Compartmentalization is for hiding details, not the big picture. For example, you compartmentalize the information revealed to factory workers building M-1A1 Abrams tanks, or B-2 Spirits. That way, none of them know enough to single-handedly compromise the entire project--- but all of them, every single one, know they're building a tank or a bomber. Seriously, I'd love to hear your explaination how "compartmentalization" could sufficiently obscure something as big as planting explosives in the WTC or "vanishing" one or more 757s.

Yes it has EVERYTHING to do with knowledge. No I feel sorry for you. If the Saudis were solely responsible, then why are we not at war with Saudi Arabia right now, or Pakisistan (do a read up on Randy Glass and operation diamondback)? For the same reason we haven't burned down Buffalo, New York to retaliate for McVeigh blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City. The Saudi and Pakistani governments didn't send those 19 on their mission.

You dont accept we were deliberately mislead to go into Iraq? Irrelevant. Good ol' uncle George was itchin' to go into Iraq since day 1 of his presidency, looking to finish what his pa started. 9-11 gave him a convenient excuse. Honestly, you people call GWB an idiot, then you claim he pulled off all these grand conspiracies.

Yes the collapse does contradict physics. I have a formal education in Physics too. A) no it didn't, and B) a little education doesn't make you right. Popular Mechanics assembled the analysis of a number of experts, and I doubt your education and experience is anywhere near as extensive as theirs.

Forget the physics, look at all the other evidence, pre, during and post-9/11.
I would suggest you stop acting like a swarmy slashdork and try to be a true critical skeptic.

Sorry. None of the [skeptic/conspiracy nut] stuff is even a little credible. You need to offer credible counter-evidence, rather than smugly braying "open your eyes, you fools!"