  Occasionally during the course of the human learning experience we are faced
with an anomaly. An aberration of sorts, which try as we might, defies
appropriate classification. The recent paper by Spiegelman et al.--Chemical and
forensic analysis of JFK assassination bullet lots: Is a second shooter
possible?--is one such aberration. It is riddled with both misconceptions and
errors of fact. Purporting to cast doubt on the NAA (neutron activation
analysis) work conducted by Dr. Vincent Guinn in the investigation of the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy, it fails miserably. The paper
offers two central conclusions, one which is demonstrably false, and the other
which is specious. The authors opine; ``If the assassination fragments are
derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely,
as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr.
Oswald.'' This statement relating to the likelihood of a second assassin based
on the premise of three or more separate bullets is demonstrably false. The
available evidence indicates that Oswald fired three shots, one of which is
believed to have missed. However, on the off chance that all three shots hit
(even though there is absolutely no other supporting forensic evidence for such
a notion) those three shots alone in no way would indicate then that ``a second
assassin is likely.'' The authors' erroneous conclusion was achieved because
they have either been misled (which I personally believe is the case) or they
simply aren't familiar with the evidence.
