Three Problems with the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Jerry Freeman]

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.

What happened to bullets merely fired into water------------------------

[Joe Elliott]

Is there a link or something that you might provide to support your claims?

I have provided that link a couple of times already. But here it is again:

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

This specifically talks about, among other things, a man firing Oswald’s rifle three times, and a paraffin test coming up negative on him.

Oswald was supposed to have fired a pistol also...no positives there either.

Actually, this is wrong. The paraffin test on Oswald’s hands? Positive. On the cheek? Negative. But gunpowder cannot escape the rifle near the hands or face as easily as it can Oswald’s handgun.

I believe they are.

 https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-paraffin-test

You believe that paraffin tests are reliable. Then tell me, why the paraffin test has gone the way of Phrenology tests, as far as courts of law are concerned.

Phrenology is the “study” the heads of people, living or dead, to determine an individual’s natural tendency to commit crimes. Or to “prove” the inferiority of certain races.

[Jerry Freeman]

  The paraffin test on Oswald’s hands? Positive. On the cheek? Negative.

Nitrates are found on cardboard boxes which Oswald handled filling orders all morning.

[Jerry Freeman]

You believe that paraffin tests are reliable.  Then tell me, why the paraffin test has gone the way of Phrenology tests, as far as courts of law are concerned.

Let's stick to the topic.

[Jerry Freeman]

One more picture of the various exhibits I can't find a clearer one I'm afraid [sorry]

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

Blah, blah, blah. Just more of your dishonest ducking and dodging, and more of your dishonest strawman arguments (however, I'll stipulate that if they are not dishonest, then you have a serious reading comprehension problem).

I notice you ignored the fact that in the Oak Ridge tests, every single time a person fired a Carcano, the paraffin cast of his cheek tested positive for nitrates in NAA testing. Every. Single. Time.

That's why Guinn was so thrilled by the tests, and that's why he called Gallagher with the good news. Guinn thought they had a way to nail Oswald, a way to prove he had fired a rifle, because he knew that if Oswald had fired a rifle, especially three times in rapid succession, NAA testing of the paraffin cast of his cheek would detect nitrates. The only problem was that Guinn did not know that the FBI had already had Oswald's paraffin casts tested with NAA and that the cheek cast had tested negative for nitrates. Oops. Uh-oh.

Why do you suppose Gallagher did not tell Guinn about this fact? Humm? Why? And why do you suppose the FBI withheld this information from the WC? Hey? Why?

There is a big difference in reliability between paraffin tests done with regular spectrographic testing and paraffin tests done with NAA. The Marquette Law Review article makes the case that even regular paraffin tests had a high degree of accuracy when done properly. The Oak Ridge reenactments prove that paraffin tests done with NAA are vastly more accurate.

I'm guessing you did not even bother to read the article from the Marquette Law Review on the reliability of paraffin tests, since apparently, judging from your verbiage, that journal suddenly doesn't qualify as a credible source in your eyes. Of course, when you're too biased and/or too lazy to read research that you know will challenge your position, the easy way out is to just wave it aside and attack where it was published, even if it was published in a widely respected law journal that has been around for over 100 years.

Nobody said that nuclear reactors are no longer available for NAA. Nor did anyone say that NAA is no longer used to test for gunshot residue. Where do you get those strawman arguments? I said that NAA testing is far more expensive and labor intensive than spectrographic testing because NAA must be done with a research nuclear reactor. Did your brain not process the statement from the article on gunshot residue (GSR) testing that “However, a principal disadvantage of NAA is the required access to a research nuclear reactor"?

NAA is still used for GSR testing, but SEM/EDX GSR testing is the preferred method because it is much cheaper and easier to do and yet is highly accurate. See, for example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850715000308

GSR is no longer collected with paraffin wax because they now use a different kind of adhesive, but the method and principle is the same: an adhesive substance is applied to a part of the skin and then that substance is tested for GSR. One type of commonly used adhesive contains carbon, which makes it black in color and enables it to conduct electrons in SEM analysis. Sometimes a clear adhesive lifter is used, but this method requires the application of an extra step of carbon coating to prevent the elector beam from hitting and charging the sample during SEM analysis. The adhesive is normally attached to an aluminum stub that is built into the cap of a collection container. The criminalist removes the cap to expose the tape, and then he presses the cap onto a part of the skin to collect the GSR sample.

Now that we have sifted through your ducking and dodging and strawman arguments, when are you going to address the fact that in the Oak Ridge tests, when a person fired a Carcano, the paraffin casts of their cheek tested positive for nitrates when subjected to NAA? Every. Single. Time. When are you going to deal with this fact?

[Michael Carney]

“-- The throat wound gave every appearance of being an entrance wound. It was very small, about 3-5 mm in diameter, and was punched inward. In fact, it was smaller than the back wound.”

It’s interesting that the quote “small entry” hole in JFK’s throat is used. So it was fired from the front, now I am thinking it’s the shot from the grassy knoll. James File, I know, I know, said he used a Remington .221 Firefox pistol with sight to kill JFK. That’s about as small as you can get. I know it’s only .002 smaller than a .223 but in my research I find nothing about any massive damage by a .221 like the damage a frangible .223 does. So the shooter hit JFK in the throat, the weapon is easily concealable, he gets away.

[Michael T. Griffith]

“-- The throat wound gave every appearance of being an entrance wound. It was very small, about 3-5 mm in diameter, and was punched inward. In fact, it was smaller than the back wound.”

It’s interesting that the quote “small entry” hole in JFK’s throat is used. So it was fired from the front, now I am thinking it’s the shot from the grassy knoll. James File, I know, I know, said he used a Remington .221 Firefox pistol with sight to kill JFK. That’s about as small as you can get. I know it’s only .002 smaller than a .223 but in my research I find nothing about any massive damage by a .221 like the damage a frangible .223 does. So the shooter hit JFK in the throat, the weapon is easily concealable, he gets away.

The Feds eventually ignored Dr. Perry's opinion that the missile that hit the throat ranged downward into the chest. In connection with this, it is very curious that the chest x-rays and photos are missing from the autopsy materials. The bruising that one of the medical technicians saw in Kennedy's chest after the doctors removed the chest organs tends to support Perry's conclusion.

Nurse Henchliffe, who in her many years as an ER nurse had seen many bullet wounds, told the WC that the throat wound looked like a typical entrance wound and that she had never seen exit wound that looked like that.

The throat-wound missile might well have been a fragment of glass from the windshield. We now know that there was a neat, round through-and-through hole in the windshield. Some experts, including Dr. Mantik, believe that a glass fragment struck Kennedy in the throat.