Electronic Assassinations Newsletter

Issue #1 "Case Closed or Posner Exposed?"

A Critique of Dr. Rahn's Defense (?) of Dr. Guinn's Findings - Part 2

Wallace Milam

Another, more important point remains:

Rahn fails to offer any mechanism by which the results he finds could have occurred.

1. By this, I mean he fails to explain how the claimed M-C phenomena of a bullet with a homogeneous lead core in a box of bullets whose cores are highly heterogeneous in relation to one another, produced from a batch of lead which is highly heterogeneous in relation to bullets made from other batches of lead. What could be the source of the intra-bullet homogeneity? How could it happen?

2. Consider:

a. WCC made its M-C bullets from re-cycled lead. The bullets were neither hard-nosed nor soft-nosed. (Guin himself observed this and attributed it to the use of recycled lead.)

b. To make a batch of bullet lead, large vats of recycled lead were prepared. No measured antimony was added, and selected portions of this molten mass of lead would contain highly variable amounts of antimony. When bullets from this batch were compared with bullets from another batch made at another date, the failure to use homogeneous lead and measued amounts of antimony lead to a batch which varied in antimony content from all other batches.

c. Likewise, when a number of bullets were made from the lead of a given batch, there was no homogeneity in antimony content in lead of one bullet when compared to another. Say 20 bullets were made. If lead was taken from one of the 20 bullets and compared to lead from another of the 20, no homogeneity in antimony content was found. The numbers showed huge ranges.

d. Both results "b" and "c" are to be expected, given the nature of the lead being used.

e. Yet Guinn and Rahn claim that within a given bullet, there is sufficient homogeneity in ppm of antimony to match fragments with other fragments or with the surviving bullet source. (And that WCC Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition is the only kind ever tested which permits this sort of matching). But what is the mechanism that allows this? If the molten lead poured into the bullet molds was heterogeneous in terms of its antimony (and Guinn and others say that bullets in a given box show no homogeneity in antimony content), how could there be homogeneity of antimony within the lead core of a single bullet? If the bullet lead poured into a mold to make the bullet was heterogeneous for antimony, how could the lead suddenly become homogeneous for the trace element? If bullet A from a given molten lead mix had antimony measurements of say 341 ppm, 680 ppm, 412 ppm, and 906 ppm from different fragments (and some tested by Guinn varied by this much), and bullet B from the same lead mix had antimony measurements of 390, 573, 832, and 601 ppm from different fragments within the bullet, how could one open a given bullet, take fragments from it and expect any homogeneity? How does the antimony, dispersed randomly and erratically throughout the bullets (in Guinn's meager laboratory tests), suddenly become distributed so uniformly as to allow a nuclear chemist to draw conclusions about specific fragments and their origins?

f. Could one ever have homogeneity within a bullet? The answer is "yes." In fact, bullets made with measured amounts of additive elements and thoroughly stirred mixtures were found, by Guinn and others, to be too homogeneous. NAA was not effective in matching fragments to bullets, because all fragments from different bullets of the same manufacture tended to have nearly identical amounts of antimony and silver, so that a given fragment could have come from any of the other fragments which were recovered at the scene.

g. Such homogeneity could only be obtained by:

i. using pure, virgin lead
ii. adding measured fixed amounts of trace elements
iii. high-speed stirring which dispersed the trace
elements uniformly throughout the batch of lead


3. In the final analysis, neither Guinn nor Rahn:

(a) can offer a mechanism to explain his claimed results [A REQUIREMENT OF SCIENCE]
(b) assign a numerical probability to their conclusions [A REQUIREMENT OF SCIENCE]
(c) devise experiments which will reproduce their claimed results [A REQUIREMENT OF SCIENCE]

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Home Page