WC-FBI Suppressed NAA Evidence that Oswald Did NOT Fire a Rifle on 11/22/63

[Michael T. Griffith]

As Simkin seems to be doing at the Ed Forum, I get the feeling Michael is going through his old files and finding material to start numerous threads on forums such as this in order to create the illusion that Conspiracy World is still alive and well, as opposed to being on life support and having a Near Death Experience as it actually is.

This may be the state of things on your planet, or in your alternate reality, but down here on Earth, in this reality, your version of the JFK assassination continues to be rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world. This has been the case since the 1970s. Also, down here on Earth, in this reality, most of the new research being published on the JFK case is being done by researchers who reject your version of the shooting.

The percentage of people who buy your version of the JFK shooting is only slightly higher than the percentage of people who believe that Bush and Cheney knew in advance that 9/11 was going to happen. Congrats.

And a friendly reminder: The last official government investigation into JFK's death, the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979, concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that Oswald had ties to virulent JFK hater David Ferrie and anti-Castro Cubans, that Ruby's excuse for shooting Oswald was false, that Ruby did not just stroll down the Main Street ramp to enter the police basement to shoot Oswald, that Ruby's numerous phone calls to Mafia contacts all over the country in the weeks leading up to the assassination could not all be explained by his labor disputes, that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor sniper's nest within 2 minutes of the shooting at a time when Oswald could not have been the one moving the boxes, that the WC failed to adequately pursue evidence of conspiracy, that the WC's depiction or Ruby was inaccurate, that JFK was first hit by a shot fired at a time when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree, that the Secret Service's security arrangements may have been "uniquely insecure," etc., etc., etc. 

Anyway, I take it you're not going to try to explain the fact that NAA testing of Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast found no chemical indications that he'd fired a rifle on 11/22, even though control testing established that NAA was 100% reliable in detecting such indications.

[Jack Nessan]

This may be the state of things on your planet, or in your alternate reality, but down here on Earth, in this reality, your version of the JFK assassination continues to be rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world. This has been the case since the 1970s. Also, down here on Earth, in this reality, most of the new research being published on the JFK case is being done by researchers who reject your version of the shooting.

The percentage of people who buy your version of the JFK shooting is only slightly higher than the percentage of people who believe that Bush and Cheney knew in advance that 9/11 was going to happen. Congrats.

And a friendly reminder: The last official government investigation into JFK's death, the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979, concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that Oswald had ties to virulent JFK hater David Ferrie and anti-Castro Cubans, that Ruby's excuse for shooting Oswald was false, that Ruby did not just stroll down the Main Street ramp to enter the police basement to shoot Oswald, that Ruby's numerous phone calls to Mafia contacts all over the country in the weeks leading up to the assassination could not all be explained by his labor disputes, that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor sniper's nest within 2 minutes of the shooting at a time when Oswald could not have been the one moving the boxes, that the WC failed to adequately pursue evidence of conspiracy, that the WC's depiction or Ruby was inaccurate, that JFK was first hit by a shot fired at a time when Oswald's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree, that the Secret Service's security arrangements may have been "uniquely insecure," etc., etc., etc. 

Anyway, I take it you're not going to try to explain the fact that NAA testing of Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast found no chemical indications that he'd fired a rifle on 11/22, even though control testing established that NAA was 100% reliable in detecting such indications.

Anyway, I take it you're not going to try to explain the fact that NAA testing of Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast found no chemical indications that he'd fired a rifle on 11/22, even though control testing established that NAA was 100% reliable in detecting such indications.

Reliability of the Test

Wrong, as it turns out. Before the assassination, the FBI had conducted experiments showing the unreliability of paraffin tests. FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham testified to this in front of the Warren Commission (3H487):

And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands.

It is evident that false positives and false negatives occur with the revolvers. After the assassination the Warren Commission directed the FBI to run the same experiment using the C2766 rifle and ammunition which was identical to what was found in the Texas School Book Depository. Cunningham related the results of that experiment (3H494):
 
CUNNINGHAM:    Yes.
We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.

EISENBERG:   So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
CUNNINGHAM:   That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.
Cunningham had explained earlier why a false negative could arise with the rifle (3H492):
EISENBERG:    A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
CUNNINGHAM:   Yes.
EISENBERG:   Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
CUNNINGHAM:   No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

To summarize, both false positives, from nitrates present in ordinary substances other than gunpowder, and false negatives, due to the sealed-chamber design of the C2766, arose in paraffin tests.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Anyway, I take it you're not going to try to explain the fact that NAA testing of Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast found no chemical indications that he'd fired a rifle on 11/22, even though control testing established that NAA was 100% reliable in detecting such indications.

Reliability of the Test

Wrong, as it turns out. Before the assassination, the FBI had conducted experiments showing the unreliability of paraffin tests. FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham testified to this in front of the Warren Commission (3H487):

And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands.

It is evident that false positives and false negatives occur with the revolvers. After the assassination the Warren Commission directed the FBI to run the same experiment using the C2766 rifle and ammunition which was identical to what was found in the Texas School Book Depository. Cunningham related the results of that experiment (3H494):
 
CUNNINGHAM:    Yes.
We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.

EISENBERG:   So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
CUNNINGHAM:   That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.
Cunningham had explained earlier why a false negative could arise with the rifle (3H492):
EISENBERG:    A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
CUNNINGHAM:   Yes.
EISENBERG:   Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
CUNNINGHAM:   No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

To summarize, both false positives, from nitrates present in ordinary substances other than gunpowder, and false negatives, due to the sealed-chamber design of the C2766, arose in paraffin tests.

And Cunningham said the FBI didn't use the test because it was not reliable.

Mr. EISENBERG. To rephrase it, if the FBI is having an investigation by itself in a matter it has primary jurisdiction over, will it use the paraffin test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; not the paraffin-chemical test.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM: It is the feeling that it is definitely not reliable as to determining whether or not a person has fired a weapon.

This takes all of 60 seconds of "research" to find.

Griffith's conspiracy thinking, how he connects dots and looks at evidence, is revealed in his belief that Sirhan was "hypnoprogrammed" to shoot RFK. Yes, hypnoprogrammed.

Here's his reasoning:
(1) The government investigated mind control capabilities, e.g., MK-Ultra;
(2) Sirhan said he couldn't remember what happened during the shooting;
(3) Conclusion: Sirhan was a victim of (1) the mind control program.

In the conspiracy mind that's all that is needed.

[Jack Nessan]

And Cunningham said the FBI didn't use the test because it was not reliable.

Mr. EISENBERG. To rephrase it, if the FBI is having an investigation by itself in a matter it has primary jurisdiction over, will it use the paraffin test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; not the paraffin-chemical test.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM: It is the feeling that it is definitely not reliable as to determining whether or not a person has fired a weapon.

This takes all of 60 seconds of "research" to find.

Griffith's conspiracy thinking, how he connects dots and looks at evidence, is revealed in his belief that Sirhan was "hypnoprogrammed" to shoot RFK. Yes, hypnoprogrammed.

Here's his reasoning:
(1) The government investigated mind control capabilities, e.g., MK-Ultra;
(2) Sirhan said he couldn't remember what happened during the shooting;
(3) Conclusion: Sirhan was a victim of (1) the mind control program.

In the conspiracy mind that's all that is needed.

This takes all of 60 seconds of "research" to find.

Spot on. It does not seem to take much effort to unravel his thinking. It has become more like a hobby.

[Michael T. Griffith]

And Cunningham said the FBI didn't use the test because it was not reliable.

Mr. EISENBERG. To rephrase it, if the FBI is having an investigation by itself in a matter it has primary jurisdiction over, will it use the paraffin test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; not the paraffin-chemical test.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM: It is the feeling that it is definitely not reliable as to determining whether or not a person has fired a weapon.

This takes all of 60 seconds of "research" to find.

And it takes all of 10 seconds of "reading" to understand that Cunningham was not talking about the Oak Ridge NAA testing on Oswald's paraffin cast, and that he also wasn't talking about the Oakwood control test that proved that NAA was 100% reliable in detecting nitrate traces in the paraffin cast of every single riflemen who participated in the test.

That's why the FBI spent years and millions in legal fees fighting Weisberg and Lesar's lawsuit to obtain the Oakridge NAA raw data.

Griffith's conspiracy thinking, how he connects dots and looks at evidence, is revealed in his belief that Sirhan was "hypnoprogrammed" to shoot RFK. Yes, hypnoprogrammed.

Here's his reasoning:
(1) The government investigated mind control capabilities, e.g., MK-Ultra;
(2) Sirhan said he couldn't remember what happened during the shooting;
(3) Conclusion: Sirhan was a victim of (1) the mind control program.

In the conspiracy mind that's all that is needed.

Hey, this is 2025, FYI. You are years behind the information curve. As I've told you before, one of the world's leading experts on hypnosis, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard University, interviewed and tested Sirhan for years, and concluded that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to fire at RFK, and that this was why Sirhan had no memory of shooting RFK and why he could not remember several key periods of time leading up to the assassination. Dr. Brown provided a detailed report on his findings in his sworn statement for Sirhan's 2011 appeal.

Dr. Herbert Spiegel, a New York psychiatrist and world-renowned expert on hypnosis who teaches at Columbia University, has likewise concluded that "Sirhan was probably programmed through hypnosis to fire a gun in the presence of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy without knowing what he was doing and without being able to recall either the events or the process of being programmed" (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-feb-05-le-textbooks5.3-story.html).

I again recommend the video The Real Manchurian Candidate, which is available on YouTube (

In the video, Dr. Brown explains his years-long examination of Sirhan and his conclusion that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to shoot RFK and not to remember doing so and being programmed to do so.

And, uh, yes, the government did have a mind-control program. In our previous exchange, I cited two scholarly books on the program. Did you read either of them? Let me guess. . . .

[John Mytton]

This may be the state of things on your planet, or in your alternate reality, but down here on Earth, in this reality, your version of the JFK assassination continues to be rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world.

And exactly what tiny fraction of the "2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world" have actually read the Warren Report and from there how many have even heard of the twenty six volumes and from this infinitesimally teeny-weeny sample, how many have actually read even 1 page of the twenty six volumes??

BTW, huge numbers of people believe that the Earth is flat, 9/11 was an inside job, we never went to the Moon and we are ruled by Alien shape shifting Lizard people but surely you don't believe in any of that, or do you? Well actually from your far out JFK conspiracy theories, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you believe in all of the above!

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

And exactly what tiny fraction of the "2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world" have actually read the Warren Report and from there how many have even heard of the twenty six volumes and from this infinitesimally teeny-weeny sample, how many have actually read even 1 page of the twenty six volumes??

And exactly what tiny fraction of the 1/4 to 1/3 of the people in the Western world who agree with your version of the shooting--how many of them have read even half of the Warren Report, much less any of the 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits? Hey?

BTW, huge numbers of people believe . . . that 9/11 was an inside job, . . .

Oh, dear. I guess you don't know that the percentage of the Western world that still buys your lone-gunman theory is about the same as the percentage of people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job! Congrats! I'm guessing you weren't aware of this.

huge numbers of people believe that the Earth is flat, 9/11 was an inside job we never went to the Moon and we are ruled by Alien shape shifting Lizard people. . . . but surely you don't believe in any of that, or do you? Well actually from your far out JFK conspiracy theories, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you believe in all of the above!

"Huge numbers" of people do not believe those things. Indeed, again, the percentage of people who still believe the lone-gunman theory is about the same as the percentage of people who believe 9/11 was an inside job.

In fact, polling data show that as many as 20% of Americans have expressed doubt about the Moon landings, which is not too far below the percentage of people who agree with you on the JFK shooting! Congrats again!

Just look at the unserious arguments you are making in response to the control-test verified scientific evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle on 11/22. You guys are so emotionally committed to the lone-gunman theory that you can't bring yourselves to deal rationally and credible with facts that refute the theory.