Letter to the editor. NAA and JFK: Can revisionism take us home?
John E. Fiorentino

TL;DR
This paper critically examines a flawed study claiming multiple bullets imply a second shooter in JFK's assassination, reaffirming the validity of neutron activation analysis and clarifying misconceptions.
Contribution
It refutes misconceptions in a prior study, reaffirming the reliability of neutron activation analysis in forensic investigations of JFK's assassination.
Findings
The original study's conclusion about multiple bullets indicating a second shooter is false.
Neutron activation analysis remains a valid forensic tool.
Clarification of misconceptions about JFK forensic evidence.
Abstract
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…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
