Three Problems with the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Paul May]

Because at that point no one knew that they were going to have to concoct the single-bullet theory. No one knew that Jackie was going to throw a monkey wrench into the cover-up plans by insisting that the autopsy be done at Bethesda instead of Walter Reed, as we now know from newly discovered Air Force One tapes.

And, yes, lots of bullets could make a 3-5 mm entry wound. You guys do realize that there are lots of other sizes of bullets besides 6.5 mm, right? Entry wounds in skin over soft tissue can be slightly smaller than the diameter of the bullet. So there is nothing unusual about a 3-5 mm entry wound in such cases.

The cover-up plans??? You make this up on the fly or sit around for hours pontificating?

[Martin Weidmann]

I believe this is perhaps the image that Jerry Freeman struggled to find:



If that deformation to the base of the bullet occurred upon firing the projectile, and not from striking Connally’s rib, the bullet would never had been able to pass through the barrel of the rifle.

Deformation upon firing, HA.

If that deformation to the base of the bullet occurred upon firing the projectile, and not from striking Connally’s rib, the bullet would never had been able to pass through the barrel of the rifle.

That may be true. I don't know enough about weapons to comment, but I can ask you how you know that this particular bullet struck Connally's rib?

[Martin Weidmann]

From a common sense point of view, why would "they" plant a near pristine bullet? Surely they would've known this would arouse suspicion? Why not plant a smashed up bullet?

Who said they (whoever "they" are) planted any bullet?

What if the bullet found by Tomlinson was indeed a different one (just like Wright told Josiah Thompson) and completely unrelated to the JFK murder? ...

Nobody in the chain of custody could identify the bullet, now in evidence as CE399, until it got to the FBI lab. As the rifle was also there, it would be easy to shoot some test rounds and "mix up" the bullets.... I'm not saying this happened, but it is within the realm of possibilities. Who knows what went on in the FBI lab during the first 24 hours after the murder....

[Jerry Freeman]

From a common sense point of view, why would "they" plant a near pristine bullet?

Note that even Mr Shields refers to 'a near pristine bullet'. And he is correct.

If that deformation to the base of the bullet occurred upon firing the projectile, and not from striking Connally’s rib, the bullet would never had been able to pass through the barrel of the rifle.

What an absurd statement. What would the bullet do---get stuck 1/2 way down the barrel?

That may be true. I don't know enough about weapons to comment, but I can ask you how you know that this particular bullet struck Connally's rib?

  He absolutely 'knows' that CE 399 stuck and wounded two people because his brain is glued to the Warren Report. 

[Michael T. Griffith]

The cover-up plans??? You make this up on the fly or sit around for hours pontificating?

Yes, the cover-up plans, as evidenced by the numerous Dealey Plaza witnesses who had their cameras and/or film taken, by the phony Secret Service agents in Dealey Plaza, by the Secret Service's forceful stealing of the body from Parkland Hospital to prevent a genuine autopsy from being performed on it, by the silencing of Oswald by Jack Ruby, by the murder of numerous witnesses and private researchers, by the disappearance of bullet fragments found during the autopsy, etc., etc., etc.

I'm guessing you know nothing about the new version of the Air Force One tapes that surfaced a few years ago, right? We now know that the plan was to separate Jackie from the casket but that she adamantly refused to go along, and that the Secret Service arranged for the body to be transported by helicopter to Bethesda.

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-af1-tapes-and-subsequent-events-at-andrews-afb-on-november-22-1963-what-was-supposed-to-happen-vs-what-did-happen/

The segment about the Air Force One tapes, the body, the casket, and Jackie and the body/casket starts at about 58:17:

[Michael T. Griffith]

I did a little checking about paraffin tests and, not surprisingly, discovered that WC apologists have misrepresented the facts about the test and its reliability.

* Here is an article written in 1961 and published in the Marquette Law Review that presents evidence that the paraffin test had a high degree of accuracy when it was done properly:

“Evidential Implications of the Dermal Nitrate Test for Gunpowder Residues”
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2849&context=mulr

The article notes that the Turkel and Lipman study, which paraffin-test critics widely cited, and which the Colorado supreme court cited in its ruling against paraffin tests, was badly flawed and failed to conform to the “minimum requirements for scientific methodology.” The article further notes that the Harrison and Gilroy studies were much more precise and scientific than the Turkel and Lipman study.

* A key reason that paraffin tests were eventually discontinued is that most paraffin tests were done on hands, since most criminal shootings, like today, were done with handguns, not rifles. It was realized that false positives on hands were possible if the person had handled a number of common substances on the day of the shooting. If defense attorneys could show, or seem to show, that the accused had handled substances that could have left nitrates on his hands, the paraffin test’s evidentiary value was minimized or eliminated.

* Another reason that paraffin tests were eventually discontinued by police departments partly is that some courts ruled they were too unreliable, even though other courts, such as the Pennsylvania supreme court, ruled they were reliable enough as long as they were done properly.

* Paraffin tests done on cheeks were much more reliable because false positives were very unlikely. When a gunshot crime was committed with a rifle, the police would do a paraffin cast of the suspect’s right cheek (left cheek if he were left handed). The mold would then be tested spectrographically, usually by the police crime lab or by a locally contracted lab. If the paraffin cast tested positive for nitrates, mainly barium and antimony, this was viewed as strong evidence that the person had fired a rifle, and defense attorneys had a very hard time coming up innocent explanations for the presence of nitrates on the cheek. 

* A 1991 article titled “Forensic Science: Gunshot Residue Tests” in the Criminal Law Bulletin noted that gunshot residue tests done with neutron activation analysis (NAA) are extremely accurate: “Neutron activation analysis (NAA), a method for determining the elemental composition of substances, is extremely sensitive and accurate.”

However, the article also notes that NAA testing requires access to a nuclear reactor: “However, a principal disadvantage of NAA is the required access to a research nuclear reactor.”

“Forensic Science: Gunshot Residue Tests”
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=133932

* It is very significant that the paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek was tested with NAA at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and that the NAA test found no traces of nitrates in the cast. This is powerful evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.

* There is a revealing and fascinating behind-the-scenes story about the NAA testing of Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast. Dr. Gerald McKnight discusses this in his book Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why (University Press of Kansas, 2005).

In February 1964, Dr. Vincent Guinn contacted the FBI’s spectrographer, John Gallagher, to tell him the good news that reenactments done at the Oak Ridge facility proved that if Oswald fired a rifle three times in rapid succession, NAA testing of his paraffin cheek cast would positively detect nitrates in the cast:

The triple firing of the rifle, Guinn advised, “leaves unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts.” Because of the inferior construction of the Mannlicher-Carcano, the Italian army’s World War II assault rifle, Guinn noted that the blowback from one or three shots deposited powder residue “on both cheeks” of the shooter. . . .

The test results . . . disclosed that every time the Mannlicher-Carcano was fired, the paraffin tests showed positive for barium and antimony. . . . (Breach of Trust, p. 259)

Guinn did not know that the FBI had already had Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast tested at Oak Ridge. When asked Guinn asked Gallagher for information about the Oswald paraffin casts, Gallagher stonewalled him and told him the information was unavailable at that time!

[Joe Elliott]

I did a little checking about paraffin tests and, not surprisingly, discovered that WC apologists have misrepresented the facts about the test and its reliability.

* Here is an article written in 1961 and published in the Marquette Law Review that presents evidence that the paraffin test had a high degree of accuracy when it was done properly:

Well, I guess you can’t say that nothing but bad comes out of Marquette University.


I’m not talking about paraffin tests unless questions are answered.

Question 1:

The FBI had someone fired Oswald’s rifle three times, and the paraffin test on him came up negative.

So, doesn’t this indicate that paraffin tests are unreliable?

Question 2:

If paraffin tests are reliable, why aren’t they used today?

Question 3:

If you answer Question 2 with “Because Nuclear Reactors are not available”, why is it that Nuclear Reactors used to be available for these tests, but no longer are?

Question 4:
And what do you mean by a “Nuclear Reactor”?

Like a full-size nuclear power plant? A small-scale research reactor? And why couldn’t such reactors be used today for critically important criminal cases? If paraffin tests are so reliable.

Surely, they would be used from time to time, in life or death (or life imprisonment cases), if the paraffin test was reliable.

[Jerry Freeman]

The FBI had someone fired Oswald’s rifle three times, and the paraffin test on him came up negative.

Is there a link or something that you might provide to support your claims? Oswald was supposed to have fired a pistol also...no positives there either.

So, doesn’t this indicate that paraffin tests are unreliable?
 If paraffin tests are reliable, why aren’t they used today?

I believe they are.
 https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-paraffin-test