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

[Michael T. Griffith]

Well, well, it turns out that one member of the Warren Commission (WC) and one of the WC attorneys knew that neutron activation analysis (NAA) had found no traces of nitrates on the paraffin mold of Oswald’s cheek, and that this meant he had not fired a rifle on the day of the assassination. WC attorney Norman Redlich advised WC member Alan Dulles about the NAA results in an internal memo, a memo that came to light only after a FOIA lawsuit filed by Harold Weisberg. Said Redlich,

“At best, the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this
is by no means certain. … There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle.”
(Memo from Redlich to Dulles, 7/2/1964)

This contradicts the WC’s later claim that nitrates were found on both sides of the paraffin cast of Oswald’s cheek and that therefore the paraffin test was “unreliable.”

The documents released by Weisberg’s FOIA lawsuit also reveal that the FBI arranged for a control test of the validity of the NAA paraffin test of Oswald’s cheek and found NAA to be 100% reliable in detecting nitrate traces. Since the test required a nuclear reactor, the test was done on the FBI’s behalf at the Atomic Energy Commission’s Oak Ridge facility. Seven marksmen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle once and then three times in rapid succession, and then underwent an NAA paraffin test. In every single case, NAA detected substantial amounts of nitrates in their cheek paraffin molds. In other words, all seven cheek paraffin casts tested positive for nitrates, just as they should have (Weisberg, Post Mortem, 1975, pp. 436-438; see also FBI HQ JFK File, 62–109060–5; FBI HQ Oswald File, 105–82555–94).

The Weisberg-released documents show that FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham lied through his teeth about the paraffin tests in his WC testimony. Yet, WC apologists still cite Cunningham’s testimony to justify their rejection of the negative paraffin results on Oswald’s cheek cast.

Moreover, in the Oak Ridge control test, two of the seven shooters also underwent the standard diphenylamine paraffin test, the same kind of test the Dallas police used, and in both cases their cheek casts tested positive for nitrates (General Atomic Report GA-6152 to the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, pp. 10-11). Also, all seven shooters had to wait three or four hours after firing the rifle before the paraffin molds were made of their cheeks.

Dr. David Wrone, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin, says the following about Oswald’s paraffin test:

Paraffin tests test on a well-known fact that when a rifle is fired, gases blow
back on the shooter’s face and hands, depositing detectable residues. At midnight
on November 22, the Dallas police performed the normal tests on Oswald to
detect any deposits, using warm liquid paraffin on his right cheek and both hands
to make casts. As it hardened, the paraffin would remove and capture any deposits
from his skin and pores. Police sent the casts to Dr. Martin F. Mason, director of the
Dallas City-County Criminal Investigative Laboratory at Parkland Memorial Hospital,
who at 10:45 AM on November 23 tested them with reagent diphenyl-benzidine.
The results showed “no traces of nitrates” on the right cheek, which meant Oswald
had not fired a rifle. . . .

In its Report the Commission dismisses paraffin tests by asserting that “a positive
reaction is . . . valueless” in showing a suspect fired a weapon and thus “unreliable.”
This is disingenuous. To be sure, ink, paper, and many other common objects that
Oswald’s hands touched that day during the normal course of his work could have
caused a positive reaction, but as the Commission’s own official evidence proved,
the absence of traces is exculpatory. Oswald’s cheek had none; he had not fired a rifle.

Not satisfied with the Dallas testing, the FBI in its laboratory also performed a more
refined spectrographic test of the samples, a scientific test used by law enforcement for
60 years in similar cases. The FBI lab drew the same conclusion about residues on the
cheek. Then, under pressure from the Commission, the FBI submitted the paraffin casts
to a third, even more sophisticated test. They took the samples to the Atomic Energy
Commission facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. . . .

Upon receiving word of the findings, FBI headquarters immediately ordered its agents
not to release or make known the results to anyone in order “to protect the Bureau”. . . .
Nevertheless, after a bitterly contested lawsuit that lasted ten years, critic Harold
Weisberg and his attorney James Lesar obtained the NAA raw data and the results from
the bureau and the Oak Ridge authorities.

Weisberg discovered an additional element to the tests that was devastating for
the official findings. The FBI had used a control in making the tests. Seven different
men had fired the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and NAA officials had made paraffin casts
of their cheeks, which were then tested for residues by the reactor. The control firings
had deposited heavy residues on the control cheeks. Oswald’s check cast had no such
residues or any traces whatsoever. He had not fired a rifle. (The Zapruder Film:
Reframing JFK’s Assassination, University Press of Kansas, 2003, pp. 171-172)

We all know that if Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast had tested positive for nitrates in the DPD diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, in the FBI spectrographic paraffin test, and in the Oak Ridge NAA paraffin test, the WC would have hailed this as powerful evidence that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/1963, and WC apologists would still be parroting this position to this day. But, since Oswald’s cheek cast tested negative for nitrates in all three of those tests, WC apologists bend over backward to not only ignore the negative result but to discredit even the NAA paraffin test, even though the FBI’s own control test found that the NAA paraffin test was 100% reliable for detecting traces of nitrates.

[John Mytton]

Testing nitrate residue with the actual weapon that Oswald owned and used!



Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. 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.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. 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.

And again!

Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct

Lieutenant Day from the Dallas Police Department also testified regarding nitrate residue from a rifle and tells us that for an obvious reason that Oswald's face cast was the first one he was associated with and Day goes on and explains that "in my experience there, shooting a rifle with a telescopic sight there would be no chance for nitrates to get way back or on the side of the face from a rifle".

Mr. DAY. I directed them to make it, and also paraffin casts or just of a piece of paraffin on the left side of the face to see if there were any nitrates there.
Mr. BELIN. On the left side or right side of the face?
Mr. DAY. Right side.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what the results of the paraffin tests were?
Mr. DAY. The test on the face was negative.
Mr. BELIN. Had you ever done a paraffin test on a face before?
Mr. DAY. No; actually--had it not been for the particular type of case and this particular situation here we would not have at this time. It was just something that was done to actually keep from someone saying later on, "Why didn't you do it?" Actually, in my experience there, shooting a rifle with a telescopic sight there would be no chance for nitrates to get way back or on the side of the face from a rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Well, the chamber, the nature of the chamber of the rifle, would that have anything to do with that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. In what way?
Mr. DAY. A rifle such as that one we are talking about here from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, in my opinion, would not throw nitrates back to where a man's face was when he is looking through a telescopic sight.
Mr. BELIN. Well, when you ran these tests you had understood that the man, Oswald, had fired a pistol, too, hadn't he?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Would you expect to have any positive tests from a pistol on the cheek?
Mr. DAY. I would expect more with a revolver with an open cylinder than I would from a rifle. Actually, for most practical purposes, I would not be surprised if there would be no nitrates from a man firing a rifle.

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

Testing nitrate residue with the actual weapon that Oswald owned and used!

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. 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.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. 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.

And again!

Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct

Lieutenant Day from the Dallas Police Department also testified regarding nitrate residue from a rifle and tells us that for an obvious reason that Oswald's face cast was the first one he was associated with and Day goes on and explains that "in my experience there, shooting a rifle with a telescopic sight there would be no chance for nitrates to get way back or on the side of the face from a rifle".

Mr. DAY. I directed them to make it, and also paraffin casts or just of a piece of paraffin on the left side of the face to see if there were any nitrates there.
Mr. BELIN. On the left side or right side of the face?
Mr. DAY. Right side.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what the results of the paraffin tests were?
Mr. DAY. The test on the face was negative.
Mr. BELIN. Had you ever done a paraffin test on a face before?
Mr. DAY. No; actually--had it not been for the particular type of case and this particular situation here we would not have at this time. It was just something that was done to actually keep from someone saying later on, "Why didn't you do it?" Actually, in my experience there, shooting a rifle with a telescopic sight there would be no chance for nitrates to get way back or on the side of the face from a rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Well, the chamber, the nature of the chamber of the rifle, would that have anything to do with that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. In what way?
Mr. DAY. A rifle such as that one we are talking about here from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, in my opinion, would not throw nitrates back to where a man's face was when he is looking through a telescopic sight.
Mr. BELIN. Well, when you ran these tests you had understood that the man, Oswald, had fired a pistol, too, hadn't he?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Would you expect to have any positive tests from a pistol on the cheek?
Mr. DAY. I would expect more with a revolver with an open cylinder than I would from a rifle. Actually, for most practical purposes, I would not be surprised if there would be no nitrates from a man firing a rifle.

JohnM

LOL! Literally LOL. Did you not read the OP?

If you'll read the OP, you'll learn that Cunningham lied through his teeth. The FBI proved that NAA was 100% reliable for detecting nitrate traces in paraffin casts of riflemen who had fired previously used Mannlicher-Carcano rifles. In every single instance in the Oak Ridge tests, the paraffin cast of each of the riflemen contained traces of paraffin and those traces were detected by NAA. Every. Single. Time.

That's why the FBI fought so doggedly against releasing the raw data from the FBI analysis and from the Oak Ridge tests.

[John Mytton]

LOL! Literally LOL. Did you not read the OP?

If you'll read the OP, you'll learn that Cunningham lied through his teeth. The FBI proved that NAA was 100% reliable for detecting nitrate traces in paraffin casts of riflemen who had fired previously used Mannlicher-Carcano rifles. In every single instance in the Oak Ridge tests, the paraffin cast of each of the riflemen contained traces of paraffin and those traces were detected by NAA. Every. Single. Time.

That's why the FBI fought so doggedly against releasing the raw data from the FBI analysis and from the Oak Ridge tests.

Hilarious.
Cunningham used Oswald's actual rifle and any tests where some other other random Carcano rifle was used, the results are beyond worthless.

Nice try, but I'm afraid no cigar for you, Griffith.

JohnM

[Charles Collins]

Not only should the testing be done with the actual weapon (as John Mytton posted) but the actual conditions need to be duplicated (easier said than done).




There was substantial wind on 11/22/63 at 12:30 pm out of the West/Southwest. This would cause the air to enter the half open sniper’s window. The Bernoulli effect would have caused the velocity of the wind to increase substantially as it passed through the small window opening. The rifle being held in a right-handed shooting position would mean the rifle was downwind of the shooter’s face. The rifle scope was mounted offset to the left side of the barrel/receiver/bolt; this would place the rifle further downwind of the shooter’s face than if the scope was mounted directly above the barrel/receiver/bolt. The rifle was aimed downward at a substantial angle(s). All of the above conditions would tend to blow and/or direct any GSR away from the shooter’s face.

Additionally the time lapsed between the shooting and the administering of the paraffin tests was substantially greater for LHO than the tests cited. The activities of LHO between the shooting and the testing should be duplicated also. Hurrying to catch the bus, catch the cab, get his pistol, change clothes, to the Tippit murder scene, away from the Tippit murder scene, into the theater, the scuffle during his arrest, his time being questioned, his skin type, the amount of sweating involved with these activities, etc all should be duplicated if you want to try to claim these tests were conclusive. Can you show us that all of the above conditions were duplicated?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Not only should the testing be done with the actual weapon (as John Mytton posted) but the actual conditions need to be duplicated (easier said than done).

Oh, boy. All the reaching and straining and special pleading from you folks is a sight to behold!

So the alleged murder weapon, a Mannlicher-Carcano, discharged GSR vastly differently than the Mannlicher-Carcano in the Oak Ridge test! Why do you suppose even the FBI did not make that silly argument? Why do you suppose the FBI fought so doggedly to keep the raw data on those tests from being released?

There was substantial wind on 11/22/63 at 12:30 pm out of the West/Southwest. This would cause the air to enter the half open sniper’s window. The Bernoulli effect would have caused the velocity of the wind to increase substantially as it passed through the small window opening. The rifle being held in a right-handed shooting position would mean the rifle was downwind of the shooter’s face. The rifle scope was mounted offset to the left side of the barrel/receiver/bolt; this would place the rifle further downwind of the shooter’s face than if the scope was mounted directly above the barrel/receiver/bolt. The rifle was aimed downward at a substantial angle(s). All of the above conditions would tend to blow and/or direct any GSR away from the shooter’s face.

This reminds me of the comical excuses that Flat Earthers give when confronted with satellite photos of the Earth.

The sixth-floor gunman was aiming at a sharply downward angle. The window was only halfway open, at the most. Only part of the rifle barrel extended out the window. The gunman's face would have been about 10-12 inches behind the window. The gunman's cheek would have been very close to the rifle. Thus, the intermittent wind that was blowing in the plaza would have had a minimal effect on GSR discharged from the rifle onto the gunman's cheek.

Again, it is telling that not even the FBI floated these lame excuses you are offering to try to explain away the NAA testing of the Oswald paraffin cast. 

Additionally the time lapsed between the shooting and the administering of the paraffin tests was substantially greater for LHO than the tests cited. . . . [SNIP]

GSR can remain on human skin for up to 24 hours after firing a rifle. I suggest you read Pat Speer's exhaustive chapter on NAA, Oswald's paraffin cast, and the FBI and Oak Ridge tests:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4fcastsofcontention

I disagree with Pat Speer on many issues, but his chapter on this issue is superb. He debunks every attack on this crucial evidence.

You might also want to read the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's on the NAA test on Oswald's paraffin cast and on the paraffin casts of the riflemen in the Oak Ridge test:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R8BVU7EPyoeyNiZC2sG0iqo9FLVYgkNP/view?usp=sharing

[Charles Collins]

Oh, boy. All the reaching and straining and special pleading from you folks is a sight to behold!

So the alleged murder weapon, a Mannlicher-Carcano, discharged GSR vastly differently than the Mannlicher-Carcano in the Oak Ridge test! Why do you suppose even the FBI did not make that silly argument? Why do you suppose the FBI fought so doggedly to keep the raw data on those tests from being released?

This reminds me of the comical excuses that Flat Earthers give when confronted with satellite photos of the Earth.

The sixth-floor gunman was aiming at a sharply downward angle. The window was only halfway open, at the most. Only part of the rifle barrel extended out the window. The gunman's face would have been about 10-12 inches behind the window. The gunman's cheek would have been very close to the rifle. Thus, the intermittent wind that was blowing in the plaza would have had a minimal effect on GSR discharged from the rifle onto the gunman's cheek.

Again, it is telling that not even the FBI floated these lame excuses you are offering to try to explain away the NAA testing of the Oswald paraffin cast. 

GSR can remain on human skin for up to 24 hours after firing a rifle. I suggest you read Pat Speer's exhaustive chapter on NAA, Oswald's paraffin cast, and the FBI and Oak Ridge tests:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4fcastsofcontention

I disagree with Pat Speer on many issues, but his chapter on this issue is superb. He debunks every attack on this crucial evidence.

You might also want to read the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's on the NAA test on Oswald's paraffin cast and on the paraffin casts of the riflemen in the Oak Ridge test:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R8BVU7EPyoeyNiZC2sG0iqo9FLVYgkNP/view?usp=sharing

So the alleged murder weapon, a Mannlicher-Carcano, discharged GSR vastly differently than the Mannlicher-Carcano in the Oak Ridge test!

These rifles are used, surplus, and in various amounts of wear (typically a lot of use and subsequent wear, especially today 60+ years after 1963). They are still being sold today from the importers. When one purchases one of the rifles it is a gamble on what condition it is in. So, yes it is quite possible, maybe even probable that the GSR discharge could be vastly different in the two different rifles.


Why do you suppose even the FBI did not make that silly argument? Why do you suppose the FBI fought so doggedly to keep the raw data on those tests from being released?

All I can do is suppose (aka: guess). However it seems to me that the FBI was being protective of their reputation.



The sixth-floor gunman was aiming at a sharply downward angle. The window was only halfway open, at the most. Only part of the rifle barrel extended out the window. The gunman's face would have been about 10-12 inches behind the window. The gunman's cheek would have been very close to the rifle. Thus, the intermittent wind that was blowing in the plaza would have had a minimal effect on GSR discharged from the rifle onto the gunman's cheek.

Too bad that apparently none of the actual conditions were duplicated and tested. Your opinions really are not a viable substitute.



Again, it is telling that not even the FBI floated these lame excuses you are offering to try to explain away the NAA testing of the Oswald paraffin cast.

It is typical of JEH’s FBI to try to protect their own reputation. This is not the only time in the JFK assassination investigation that they apparently did so.



GSR can remain on human skin for up to 24 hours after firing a rifle. I suggest you read Pat Speer's exhaustive chapter on NAA, Oswald's paraffin cast, and the FBI and Oak Ridge tests

If any of the actual conditions were duplicated I am guessing you would have already said so. If not, I have already read enough of Pat Speer’s stuff to know he is typically not very objective.

[Tim Nickerson]

Seven marksmen fired A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle once and then three times in rapid succession, and then underwent an NAA paraffin test. In every single case, NAA detected substantial amounts of nitrates in their cheek paraffin molds

Seven marksmen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. They did not fire Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Stop being so ridiculous.