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

[Michael T. Griffith]

According to some of resident WC defenders, the FBI experts should have said the following,

"It really means nothing that NAA testing of Oswald's paraffin cast found no traces of nitrates nor of any other chemical indicator that he'd fired a rifle on 11/22, and that NAA control testing of the riflemen in the Oak Ridge tests found that NAA was 100% reliable in detecting nitrates in paraffin casts of men who'd fired a rifle. All of this means nothing, since no two Carcano rifles will discharge GSR in the same way! Yeah! In fact, we don't even know why we bothered to arrange the Oak Ridge tests in the first place! Nothing to see here!"

But, of course, not even the FBI, as desperate as they were to find/manufacture evidence of Oswald's guilt, did not float such an absurd argument.

In fact, the FBI spent 10 long years and millions of dollars in legal fees fighting Harold Weisberg and James Lesar's FOIA lawsuit to obtain the Oak Ridge tests' raw data.

We all know that if the Oak Ridge NAA testing of Oswald's paraffin cast had found evidence of nitrates and/or other chemical indicators that he'd fired a rifle on 11/22, WC apologists would be shouting this from the rooftops. They'd also be pointing out that the control test with several other riflemen proved that NAA was 100% reliable in detecting nitrate residues in paraffin casts of men who'd fired a rifle.

The most exhaustive analysis of the testing of Oswald's paraffin cast is Pat Speer's chapter on the subject in his online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4fcastsofcontention

Here's a greatly shortened version of Speer's analysis titled "Bugliosi Fails the Paraffin Test":

https://www.whokilledjfk.net/paraffin_test.htm

Jeremy Bojczuk's article "Oswald's Paraffin Casts" is a helpful introduction to this key evidence:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2049-oswald-s-paraffin-casts

[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.

Bumping this thread, partly because it gives us another example of the vacuous, strained way that WC defenders deal with scientific evidence that refutes their version of the shooting.

As we have seen, the arguments of WC defenders against the NAA test results on Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast boil down to the following caricature:

"It really means nothing that NAA testing of Oswald's paraffin cast found no traces of nitrates nor of any other chemical indicator that he'd fired a rifle on 11/22, and that NAA control testing of the riflemen in the Oak Ridge tests found that NAA was 100% reliable in detecting nitrates in paraffin casts of men who'd fired a rifle. All of this means nothing, since no two Carcano rifles will discharge GSR in the same way! Yeah! In fact, we don't even know why the FBI bothered to arrange the Oak Ridge tests in the first place! If nothing else, maybe a gust of wind miraculously blew through the half-open window each time Oswald fired and prevented GSR from getting on his right cheek--three times in a row, just as he pulled the trigger each time! Yeah, happens all the time! We are thinking about calling this the "magic-gusts theory.' Nothing to see here!"

But, of course, not even the FBI, as desperate as they were to find/manufacture evidence of Oswald's guilt, did not float such absurd arguments.

In fact, the FBI spent 10 long years and millions of dollars in legal fees fighting Harold Weisberg and James Lesar's FOIA lawsuit to obtain the Oak Ridge testing results and raw data.

We all know that if the Oak Ridge NAA testing of Oswald's paraffin cast had found evidence of nitrates and/or other chemical indicators that he'd fired a rifle on 11/22, WC apologists would be shouting this from the rooftops. They'd also be pointing out that the control test with several other riflemen proved that NAA was 100% reliable in detecting nitrate residues in paraffin casts of men who'd fired a rifle.

For those who want to read more on this important evidence, the most exhaustive analysis of the testing of Oswald's paraffin cast is Pat Speer's chapter on the subject in his online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4fcastsofcontention

A greatly shortened version of Speer's analysis, titled "Bugliosi Fails the Paraffin Test," can be found here:

https://www.whokilledjfk.net/paraffin_test.htm

Jeremy Bojczuk's article "Oswald's Paraffin Casts" is a helpful introduction to this key evidence:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2049-oswald-s-paraffin-casts

When you have a group of people who are determined to disbelieve something, no amount of evidence will convince them, no matter how solid and corroborated the evidence is, and even if 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world disagrees with their disbelief. 

[Lance Payette]

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.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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.

He's got six? seven? threads going at once.

I'm waiting for his "the Babushka Lady was CIA agent June Cobb and she shot JFK with a gun-camera" theory.

He actually thinks that's a "possibility." Oswald with a rifle? That's absurd. Babushka Lady with a gun-camera. "It's possible."

[Lance Payette]

He's got six? seven? threads going at once.

I'm waiting for his "the Babushka Lady was CIA agent June Cobb and she shot JFK with a gun-camera" theory.

He actually thinks that's a "possibility." Oswald with a rifle? That's absurd. Babushka Lady with a gun-camera. "It's possible."

I know - and it keeps pushing my silliness off the first page! That Connie Kritzberg expose should have been BIG.

Off the topic, but I notice at the Ed Forum that Pamela Brown ("The World's Leading Authority on JFK's Limo") says her current theory is that the JFKA was "an experiment" in which Bob Dylan, who was 22 at the time, was "at the center." (I just finished an 800-page biography of Dylan. He was pretty busy in 1963.) She calls the JFKA the first "Murder Most Foul" in something she dubs "A Mozart Experiment." She also provides the name and details of a man she actually saw shape-shift! I need to meet this woman! My recent engagement with the CT community is pushing me to the edge of reality anyway, and I suspect a lunch with Pam would finish the job.

[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.