JFK Assassination Forum

Hence my question to Dan, which he seems to want to avoid, which was: how do you know he is not already reacting in z224?  He sees a material difference between z224 and z225 but a slight change between z224 and z225 doesn’t tell that he is not already reacting at z224. And the facial expression in z225 could not have been materially different in z224.

Other than the top of his head, the only thing we see of JFK prior to Z225 is the left side of his torso and his right hand which he had started to lower prior to disappearing behind the sign. With nothing to compare Z224 to, it's impossible to say what if any reaction JFK made prior to Z225. We do know at Z225, his right hand was still moving down. We also know that JFK and JBC both raised their arms rapidly as Z226. To me this is the single best evidence of the validity of the SBT. I know of no other valid reason why both men would have simultaneously and dramatically flung their arms upward, 2 frames after JBC's jacket had bulged out. Doubters of the SBT would have us believe all of this is one big coincidence. Right!

David Von Pein pointed out to me that extreme enlargements at Z225 show an agape facial expression from JFK that is consistent with a reaction to being shot. Of course we can't compare it to Z224 because JFK's face is not visisble then. Between Z224-225 JBC's right shoulder dips dramatically, possibly a reflex action or possibly driven down by the force of the bullet. The upward arm movement by both men begins at Z226.

Hence my question to Dan, which he seems to want to avoid, which was: how do you know he is not already reacting in z224?  He sees a material difference between z224 and z225 but a slight change between z224 and z225 doesn’t tell that he is not already reacting at z224. And the facial expression in z225 could not have been materially different in z224.

What in the world? I will charitably assume you must have a reading problem. I pointed out that Dr. Shaw, who operated on the wound, said it was elliptical, and then I quoted him saying it was elliptical. Let me quote him again:

The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. (6 H 95)

And, to repeat, he's the guy who operated on the wound. He also explained that he debrided the wound elliptically, around its edges.

You know the wound measured 1.5 x 0.8 cm, right? You know this, right? That's almost identical in size to JFK's rear head entry wound--1.5 x 0.6 cm--yet no one has ever floated the theory that the head-shot bullet was markedly tumbling when it struck.

For newcomers who haven't read the whole thread, I should add that Dr. Shaw also pointed out that Connally's back-wound bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116), which debunks the idea that the bullet was markedly tumbling--either when it hit or when it tore through Connally.

BTW, Dr. Shaw was an experienced thoracic surgeon who had operated on over 1,000 gunshot cases, so he had vast experience with bullet wounds. (Ah, but John Corbett says, "That doesn't matter! He wasn't a forensic pathologist!")

Then you'd better quit gambling. Let's see:

Dr. Robert Kirschner, a forensic pathologist and one of the ARRB's three forensic experts, said the the SBT was "very dubious."

Dr. William F. Enos, the forensic pathologist who supervised CBS's SBT wound ballistics test, said the SBT was "highly improbable."

Dr. Milton Helpern, one of the foremost forensic pathologists of the 20th century, said the SBT was impossible, that not even an FMJ bullet could do all the damage claimed for it and emerge with its lands and grooves intact and with such a tiny loss of its substance.

Dr. Joseph Nichols, a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas who trained forensic pathologists, who had numerous articles on pathology published in peer-reviewed medical journals, and who was also a court-certified expert witness in forensic pathology, said the SBT was impossible for a number of reasons: the conflicting angles through JFK and Connally, CE 399's virtually undamaged condition; the lack of an unobstructed path from either of the proposed entry sites to JFK's throat wound; among other reasons.

Dr. Vincent DiMaio, one of the leading forensic pathologists of the 20th and 21st century, initially accepted the SBT but later changed his mind after studying the SBT more closely with medical scientist Russell Kent.

LOL! Oh, so NOW you're back to citing the FPP majority! Pure comedy. And this after you just recently claimed that you "don't have to explain" the FPP's finding that the brain photos, if authentic, categorically rule out the EOP site; their finding that the skull x-rays do not show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report; their finding that the only fragment trail on the skull x-rays is the high fragment trail with its cluster of numerous tiny fragments in the right-frontal region; and their finding that JFK's back-wound bullet entered and tunneled at an upward angle--a fact that they could only explain by bogusly assuming JFK was leaning over 50 degrees forward when the bullet hit!

If you would ever bother to actually read the FPP's report, you would discover that the FPP majority made no effort to explain the fact that the projectile that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing. The FPP majority also made no effort to explain how the alleged magic bullet could have nicked the top surface of the tie knot inward from the left edge while making no hole through the tie knot nor through any other part of the tie. 

And, as mentioned, the only way the FPP majority could explain the JFK back-wound bullet's upward impact angle and upward tunneling was by making the demonstrably false assumption that Kennedy was leaning forward by over 50 degrees.

We have known for decades now that there was no hole through JFK's tie and that the nick on the knot was not on the edge of the knot. In fact, in an effort to create the false impression that a bullet passed through the tie knot, the FBI made an evidence photo of the knot with the knot twisted in such a way that the nick appeared to be in the middle of the knot. When Harold Weisberg, through years of FOIA suits, finally gained access to high-quality photos of the tie, he discovered there was no hole through the tie, a fact that the HSCA later quietly admitted.

Yet, SBT believers continue to ignore this hard physical evidence and still peddle their debunked theory. You guys are like Flat Earthers who ignore satellite images of the Earth and continue to insist the globe is flat.

JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view?usp=sharing

As a follow-up, it's worth noting that Dr. Henry Lee, an internationally recognized forensic pathologist, has said he "doubts" the SBT, and that the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science and the journal Forensic have endorsed Knott Laboratory's SBT trajectory analysis. In fact, Forensic did their own documentary on the JFK case using Knott Lab's SBT trajectory study. 

Also, Dr. Jerry Labriola, a forensic expert, said the SBT "doesn't work." Dr. Labriola, who died in 2024, co-authored with Dr. Lee the books Famous Crimes Revisited and Shocking Cases from Dr. Henry Lee's Forensic Files. Dr. Labriola worked in forensic pathology while in the Navy and later became a professor at the University of Connecticut Medical School. He gave many lectures on forensic science issues. One of his most popular lectures was "Ignoring Forensic Science" in which he discussed gunshot cases where medical examiners missed or misinterpreted important forensic evidence.

What's revealing is that Michael Griffith said he believes in the HSCA acoustic evidence. That is four shots: three from the TSBD (or behind JFK) and one shot from the fence/GK (or to his right side.)

That alone disproves a entrance shot to the throat. That's if, as he does, believe the acoustic analysis.

He also believes there was a shooter on top of the linen truck and that Babushka Lady was a CIA agent, June Cobb, and that she "possibly" shot JFK with a camera gun. That's two more shots. And he believes that Oswald conspired with Shaw and Ferrie in a triangulated assassination of JFK. That's another shooter, at least.

He has shooters all over Dealey Plaza shooting from various angles and locations. But he also believe the HSCA acoustic analysis of two shooters and two locations.

He believes in things that contradict other things that he believes. It's a mishmash of claims that are at odds with other claims. Day after day, week after week, month after month. For decades. It's the classic example of a disordered conspiracy obsessed mind.

Another important item of evidence of Oswald's innocence is the NAA testing that was done on the paraffin cast from his right cheek. The paraffin mold was made from his right cheek about eight hours after the assassination. The  paraffin cast was eventually tested at the Oak Ridge Laboratory using the super-sensitive neutron activation analysis (NAA) test. The NAA test found no chemical indication, i.e., no nitrates, in the paraffin cast that Oswald had fired a rifle during the shooting. The NAA test results were suppressed for years until they were finally released as a result of Harold Weisberg's FOIA lawsuits.

Studies have proven that traces of gunshot residue (nitrates) on a person's skin can be placed on paraffin casts as long as 17 to 24 hours after a shooting. As mentioned, Oswald's paraffin mold was done eight hours after the assassination.

We now know that the morning after the assassination, Dr. M.S Mason and Louie Anderson analyzed the paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek for the Dallas police (DPD) with the standard test for detecting nitrates, the diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, and that they found "no nitrates" on the cast. The FBI then tested the right-cheek paraffin cast with a spectrographic paraffin test, and found no nitrate traces on the mold. Yet, the DPD and the FBI lied about the test results and told newsmen that Oswald's right-cheek paraffin mold had tested positive for nitrates and that this was evidence he had a fired a rifle on the day of the assassination.

Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast was then subjected to NAA testing at the Oak Ridge Laboratory, and the NAA test found no traces of nitrates in the mold.

The documents released by Weisberg’s FOIA lawsuit 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).

It turns out that one member of the Warren Commission (WC) and one of the WC attorneys knew that NAA testing had found no traces of nitrates on the paraffin mold of Oswald’s right 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 [the NAA test] 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 Weisberg FOIA-released documents show that FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham brazenly lied 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 right-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 the tests done on Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast:

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)

Needless to say, and as we all know, if Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast had tested positive for nitrates in the DPD diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, in the FBI's 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. They've offered such strained, implausible arguments as the claim that no two rifles discharge gunshot residue (GSR) in the same way or that gusts of wind blew into the sixth-floor window at just the right times, three times in a row, to blow the GSR away from Oswald's right cheek!

Yet, WC apologists offer no such exotic, improbable arguments when it comes to the fact that the paraffin casts of Oswald's hands tested positive for nitrates, indicating he may have fired a pistol on 11/22/63. Most researchers recognize that since Oswald frequently handled materials that could have left nitrates on his hands as part of his everyday job tasks, the finding of nitrates in his hand casts does not necessarily prove he fired a handgun. This is why Redlich told Dulles it was "by no means certain" that the NAA test proved Oswald had fired a pistol.

The most exhaustive analysis of the testing of Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast is Pat Speer's chapter on the subject in his online book A New Perspective on the John F. 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