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.
