Tom Neal

Tom, keep pushing for that stuff from Weisberg.

Doesn't Tom R a Who Killed JFK actually have the diagrams of the hands from the DPD nitrate test.

And yes I agree with you Tom on the more definite information.

I don't know why its so hard to come by.

Jim,

The diagrams of the hands are available, and have been for a long long time. I have MUCH better quality jpg of these than Mr. Speer posted, if you are interested LMK.

The reason this stuff is so "hard to come by" is guys who have the info are sitting on it rather than putting it out for all to use. The words, "Mine, MINE, MINE!" appear to be the reason...

I'm glad you posted about this, because thanks to you, Mr. Speer has now offered to do what I have requested in MULTIPLE posts that he has chose to ignore. Oh wait, he did respond to one post in which I quoted from his essay multiple times, and asked several questions about the content of his essay. His response, 'everything anyone need to know is in my 'casts of contention', "which Tom refuses to read."

In the post above Mr. Speer discovers a significant error (Does this affect his Casts of Contention which has everything?) in his evaluation of the documents. Had he chosen to SHARE his data rather than *HOARD* it, this would have been discovered long ago.

I'd also like to point out that MR. SPEER likes to cherry-pick info to prove his conclusions. For example, the GSR test results convince him that LHO was "more likely to have fired a pistol than a rifle." The tests indicate that he did NOT fire a rifle. Mr. Speer deduces from this that LHO may have murdered Tippit. I posted a long list of items that are EACH highly unlikely to have happened, yet ALL had to have happened for LHO to have murdered Tippit. Little things like 5 shots fired from a gun that wouldn't shoot, and only a few nitrate deposits on his right hand after firing 5 shots, and the GSR is not in the correct locations for a "positive" result. This evidence is a DRAWING made by the same DPD who lied about the test results to the public. Where is the Lab report with an explanation as to how this drawing indicates that GSR is present in the patterns of someone that fired a pistol?

Yes, Mr. Speer we've all read Post Mortem, so thanks for sharing what we already know. BTW, where does it say the FBI Lab wrote no reports? That's an assumption because Weisberg couldn't get it.

So, keep ignoring anyone who questions your results, and continue hiding evidence Mr. Speer - that's the spirit that will solve this case...

This is a DRAWING done on 11-23-1963 by the DPD, of the Nitrates present on the paraffin casts of LHO's RIGHT HAND. Note the BACK of his hand as depicted in the drawing on the left:

The only nitrates grouping present is located at the base of his thumb. Note how much more is located on the underside of his thumb! After 5 shots with a .38 revolver this is the amount of nitrates that is considered a "Positive" result?

Has anyone seen any ACTUAL documentation on the NITRATE test results? Not just the "evaluation" that the hands tested "positive." Looking at some legal sites and what the response of a defense lawyer should be, it is clearly stated that they should:

1. require a TOTAL particle count of each hand including front and back

2. require a SEPARATE particle count for the front and the back of each hand

3. require particle count of any specific areas that have a higher than average concentration

4. produce the REQUIRED documents outlining the procedure followed to take the casts, the procedure used to analyze and evaluate the results, a timeline from the moment the subject was apprehended until a conclusion was reached, and the name and qualifications of ALL persons involved.

AFAIK, not one of the above has ever been produced. Without this info, any conclusion reached is relying solely on information from the DPD and FBI who have unquestionably lied repeatedly regarding these test results in a concerted ongoing effort to convict LHO.

Did the FBI deliberately mean this to be obfuscatory?

I mean from the start? Or did they see it going to much towards being exculpatory for Oswald and so they contaminated the casts.

I mean it is hard to buy that they would not know the casts were contaminated when they got them.

Jim,

The FBI did not want to do the NAA tests at all. The AEC pushed hard to convince them to do it, and eventually they agreed to "assist" the FBI in performing the tests. I posted a memo to this effect from the AEC who stated that it "NEVER" wrote up a report on the results. The FBI only agreed to do the tests when they were guaranteed "complete" control of the results. I haven't had time to go through Harold Weisberg's stuff in the archive, but he has a lot of stuff on it published in the most recent version of Post Mortem.

More than once I have asked Mr. Speer to post the reports he has so the "raw data" can be seen by all for evaluation. I have also posted several questions regarding his 'essay' but he has chosen to ignore them.

Tom

The Outside Surface is the outside of the cast, and it acts as a control. Its reading should be very low. A high reading indicates contamination of the cast.

This is something I had considered, but according to the test evaluation, the outside of the cast was HIGH due to contamination and this chart states that it was VERY low.

The ratio of palm to back of hand is not given. If you are looking to exonerate the subject the ratio of palm to back of hand is the best indicator of gun shot v. contamination from paint for example.

Or it could be that Oswald just happened to have handled more "common substances" with his right hand than his left. Or perhaps he was tricked into doing so.

Oswald was right-handed. The left hand of most right-handers does very little except when BOTH hands are required for lifting something large. Therefore he very probably touched much more 'stuff' with his right hand than with his left, acquiring more contamination in the process. This is reflected in the chart numbers.

Keeping in mind that the FBI itself conducted the tests, and although they DESPERATELY wanted a positive, they rendered a verdict of INCONCLUSIVE due to excessive contamination. When EVEN the FBI was *unwilling* to lie to achieve a positive, it is impossible to dismiss the specter of evidence tampering.

Sandy,

Check your mailbox for a PM...

Tom

For Sandy and Bob,

Can you make any sense out of this table from Mr. Spear? There's no attribution to anyone else, so he must have made it himself.

Looking at the Ba levels on LHO's left hand (column 3):

Back+Palm+Thumb=3.15 Inside Total: This is mathematically correct. However, it includes the "Back" of the hand as part of the "Inside Total" as well as the thumb.

Row 5 subtracts the palm which=1.14: This is mathematically correct. If you exclude the "palm" then you are calculating the "outside" of the hand. Yet this value includes the same "thumb" value used for the "inside" total.

What does "Outside Surface=.28" refer to when the "back" and "thumb" are ALREADY included?

Doesn't "Inside" refer to the inside of the hand (palm and inside of the fingers), and "Outside" to the back (back of hand and back side of fingers) of the hand?

You may know this from previous posts, but I didn't see it. There are actually two booms and both are audible. The first boom occurs as the air is compressed by the passage of an object and accelerated to the speed of sound, and the second boom occurs as that same air decelerates back down to below the speed of sound. The "boom carpet" is actually cone-shaped and is generated continuously. The booms of course propagate through the atmosphere at the speed of sound, and are heard when the pressure wave reaches the observer. An observer closer to the aircraft will hear the booms before an observer that is further away.

What you are hearing is called an "N"-wave. The vertical line in the "N" represents the airflow increasing to supersonic speed, the first boom occurring at the peak. The downward angular line represents the air slowing toward Mach 1, and the second boom occurs at the lowest point of the "N" and the final line represents the air slowing down until it returns to zero speed.

If you REALLY want to understand this phenomenon, especially sound reflections off of buildings and terrain, read Donald Thomas' book. He definitely knows he's talking about when it comes to the theoretical aspects of acoustics. The company that performed the study hold the patent on a device that has been used by the military for decades. It is used to indicate the relative position of gunfire. It uses the identical equations used to calculate the sounds heard on the dictabelt recordings of the assassination. The device was used to detect and eliminate snipers throughout the Iraq War, and it DOES work.

There are a number of issues with the acoustic analysis of the police dictabelt, so it may or may not be definitive as far as shooter locations.

However, there are two factors that are difficult to dismiss.

1. as mentioned above, in practical use, this process DOES locate the source of gunfire based upon its sound waves

2. As determined by the acoustic analysis, the intervals between the "shots" are such a good match to what is believed the correct time interval between shots that it is difficult to completely dismiss these "shots" as random noise.

IF an actual audio recording of the shots fired in DP exists, then the direction of the shots could be determined because "acoustic analysis" does work 'in the field' as mentioned above.

There WAS a project that intended to make a digital recording of the "original" dictabelt. It apparently has died due to an inability to receive adequate funding.

From a letter to attorney James Lesar from Bertram H. Schur of the AEC:

The AEC's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) did provide technical support to the FBI in the performance of neutron activation analyses on the paraffin casts from the right hand, the left hand, and the right cheek of Lee Harvey Oswald. The results of these analyses are discussed in the testimony of John F. Gallagher set forth in "Hearings Before the Commission..." NEITHER AEC NOR ORNL PREPARED ANY REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THESE ANALYSES.

[emphasis above is mine]

ORNL provided *technical support* only??? Did the FBI perform the ACTUAL test themselves?

The ONLY report on these test results was written by the FBI! This indicates that the "Inconclusive" result on the cheek AND hands was made by the FBI - the very people who did NOT want the tests performed at all. Golly gee whiz, I wonder why not...

This is all explained and documented in Casts of Contention:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention

Yes, Pat, but as I've already stated repeatedly your dissertation for example scatters information throughout its contents. I've asked you repeatedly to simply POST or post a LINK to the actual documents, but you haven't even done me the courtesy of refusing. Instead you hand us your interpretation of the facts. I've experienced enough of your interpretations to be highly suspicious of them.

And no, it is not "all explained."

Here are a few more questions for you to ignore:

1. In whose employ was V. Guinn when he produced the report you obtained?

2. The section in your linked doc: Oswald's Right Hand Cast

"As the Ba/Sb ratio on both of Oswald's hand casts is nowhere near the ratio for the control casts once washed, and is much more in line with the unwashed casts, it seems more than likely the casts weren't actually washed."

What *precisely* is the "washing" process you refer to, who supposedly did it, but in your opinion "more than likely" didn't perform the washing? And, yes I know what the washing process is that you probably refer to, but I don't want to assume.

3. In the section "The Left Hand Tests" you include a black-bordered box which states:

LHO Left Hand cast:

Back Barium 0.95mg

Palm Barium 2.01mg

Why is there more than twice as much Ba present on the palm than on the back?

4. In this same box, why do you include LHO's LEFT hand and the RIGHT HAND TESTS?

From a letter to attorney James Lesar from Bertram H. Schur of the AEC:

The AEC's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) did provide technical support to the FBI in the performance of neutron activation analyses on the paraffin casts from the right hand, the left hand, and the right cheek of Lee Harvey Oswald. The results of these analyses are discussed in the testimony of John F. Gallagher set forth in "Hearings Before the Commission..." NEITHER AEC NOR ORNL PREPARED ANY REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THESE ANALYSES.

[emphasis above is mine]

ORNL provided *technical support* only??? Did the FBI perform the ACTUAL test themselves?

The ONLY report on these test results was written by the FBI! This indicates that the "Inconclusive" result on the cheek AND hands was made by the FBI - the very people who did NOT want the tests performed at all. It appears they delayed the tests until they had COMPLETE control over the performance of the tests, the resulting conclusion, and the dissemination of this information. Golly gee whiz...

Per Lt. JC Day, DPD took hand prints of BOTH of LHO's hands. Could the ink have caused the positive nitrates test? I believe it contains silver nitrate.

August 26, 1964

From a talk given by Mark Lane:

"There were traces of nitrate on both hands of many employees of the TSBD because they had been moving inventory on freshly-painted plywood boards."

He is referring to the plywood flooring that was painted gray. It appears that Lane is speculating when he states that nitrates were present on "both hands" of many TSBD employees. Anyone have any additional information?

General Atomic Report GA-6152 to the AEC

p.11
"As a result of these studies, the paraffin casts of the hands and right cheek of Lee Harvey Oswald were analyzed by neutron-activation analysis for Ba and Sb by the FBI at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The casts had been previously treated with diphenylamine by the Dallas police. As reported by the Warren Commission, the results were inconclusive--not because of failure of the activation analysis technique (which worked well), but rather because of earlier contamination of the casts, presumably by excessive handling."

Three casts were made Cheek, Left Hand, Right Hand. Usage of the plural "casts", rather than the singular, cast, leaves no doubt that the results of the NAA tests of the cheek AND the hands were "INCONCLUSIVE" due to "earlier contamination."

Thus, the NAA tests provided NO INFORMATION at all in answer to the question, 'Did LHO fire a rifle or a handgun?' and should be completely disregarded in their entirety.

Interesting FBI Memo:

11-23-1963 Section Chief Jim Handley was telephonically informed by SA Hall that "the paraffin was placed on the subject between Midnight and 1AM 11/23."

Oswald was arrested just after 1:30 PM, right? So if the casts were made at 12:30 AM, then that would be11 hours after Oswald's arrest.

Assuming no time zone conflicts -- I don't know why FBI didn't use Zulu Time, UT, GMT or whatever you want to name it... Maybe they used DC time in deference to Hoover? Eleven hours is one hell of a lot more than the typical 4 hours, or the 8 hours from Pat Speer's source.

Do you think the SS agents turned because they heard a bullet whiz by? What does it sound like to have a high-speed bullet pass by?

I posted this earlier, but it seems to have vanished...

THE rifle, when fired as part of a re-enactment was recorded at 130 decibels. The typically accepted "level of physical pain" is considered to be 120-140db.

Interesting FBI Memo:

11-23-1963 Section Chief Jim Handley was telephonically informed by SA Hall that "the paraffin was placed on the subject between Midnight and 1AM 11/23."

Later somebody (perhaps you) suggested that the outside of the cast had a lot of barium because someone had tampered with it. That made sense to me.

The WCR concludes that the greater amount of barium found on the outside of the cheek cast "rendered it impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements on the inside surface." Based on this, I think it is fair to say that WC found the test to be "inconclusive."

My belief for many years is that the GSR tests like all evidence on this case is suspect due to the PROVEN INTENTIONAL mishandling of the actual evidence by FBI, SS, et al, and the suppression and outright lies by the WC, DPD, FBI, SS and of course the MSM.

Specific proof/evidence exists that the GSR tests and/or results were tampered with/officially misrepresented, etc. Based on all of this, I DID state that the higher levels of GSR on the OUTSIDE of LHO's cheek cast as determined by the NAA testing indicates that either the casts were salted OR there actually was such a SMALL amount or NO GSR on LHO's cheek that the "backround" levels exceeded this amount. Although he believes that the test results indicate that LHO may have fired a pistol, Pat Speer has ALSO stated that he believes a case could be made for evidence tampering. These are contrary beliefs.

The level of GSR on the OUTSIDE of the cheek cast was HIGHER than the INSIDE. If they were EQUAL then the test results would have been NEGATIVE. i.e. Only the NORMAL levels of the elements Lead, Barium and Antimony were present.

The ONLY way the OUTSIDE of the cheek cast could have HIGHER levels of GSR present is that it WAS CONTAMINATED. By stating the results as "INCONCLUSIVE" they are stating that the evidence WAS contaminated. If they did NOT believe it was contaminated the results had to have been NEGATIVE.

The only question is: Was the contamination DELIBERATE or accidental? Given the handling of ALL the evidence in this case, beyond a reasonable doubt the cast or casts were tampered with.

The above is a serious crime, and should have been investigated. OTOH, if the contamination was inadvertent then the ENTIRE test process should have been investigated by those who performed the NAA tests. Is there ANY evidence that this was done? If not, then whoever determined the test results "Inconclusive" knew that the contamination was deliberate.

Can I ask a question:

Is there not a dedicated thread to the subject of gunshot residue testing?

Was that not created after I complained that this thread is not about that subject?

So why not continue that discussion over there?

Sorry Jim.

I put that post aside to respond to when I returned home today. I answered it today thinking it WAS on the GSR post...my VERY bad.

The Questioning post and the Answer post have been removed, and again my sincerest apologies for my carelessness.

Tom

Ctka.net chimes in on this Barnum and Bailey show:

http://www.ctka.net/2016/jfk-assassination-and-2016-presidential-election.html

EXCELLENT article, Jim!

We will never have a candidate who is "for the people" until we decouple the billionaires from the process that actually PRODUCES the candidates we have to choose from. Candidate funding must be included in the federal budget. This would keep the required funding so low that it would be nothing in today's multi-trillion dollar budgets. This would also put a "cap" on the number of months a candidate would be allowed to campaign, thus reducing the current billion-dollar expenditures. It would also allow a 3rd party to co-exist with candidates who are selected by the DNC and RNC.

POST MOVED TO THE GSR THREAD BY ME...

Regarding the nitrate tests, the WC did report the positive results on the hands and the negative result on the right cheek. But then it notes that "....the test is completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has recently fired a weapon or whether he has not."

The WC knew that the negative results of the cheek nitrate test indicated that LHO did NOT shoot JFK. The ONLY way to declare him guilty was to declare the nitrate test results meaningless. I have to wonder whether the 1963 experts agreed with the above conclusion by the WC?

Tom

I am relying on the very reliable neutron activation analysis done on the paraffin casts. Which showed negative for Oswald, yet positive for seven out of seven control subjects who fired a similar rifle.

Sandy,

Do you have a source for the control subjects data?

Did the cheek test as "Negative" or (I think) was it "Inconclusive?

Tom

The question that I have regarding a positive result in the Nitrate test :

HOW MANY specks of Nitrate are required for a POSITIVE result? ONE? Conclusions drawn from these test results appear to be subjective at best...

Tom

Tom, I didn't put this directly in the summary of test results because it isn't a test result. But I did include it in its own section. Hopefully you will correct it for me.

What is the POST # that includes the caveats for the GSR tests?

Are you sure that the side of the cast that did not touch Oswald's cheek actually tested positive on the NAA test? (I knew that it had more barium than on the side that touched Oswald's face. But I didn't know that it tested positive.)

That was a bad choice of terminology on my part. I meant that the WRONG SIDE of the cheek CAST tested "positive" for Barium(?) in the sense that Barium was present were it should NOT have been. I did NOT mean that there was enough GSR on the "outside" of the cheek cast for the Test Result to be Positive, because I do NOT know HOW MUCH GSR was present on the "outside" of the cast.

I don't know if you noticed, but I've temporarily copied four of your posts (above), so I could data mine them... just in case they get deleted from Jim DiEugenio's thread before I could finish that.

I did, and it's a good idea!

Tom

Sandy,

I think it's VITAL to include the fact that DPD chose to wait 7-8 hours after LHO was apprehended before making the paraffin casts, and this fact should be included in the bullet summary of the test results. This has never been explained. Knowing that the longer they waiter, the lower the nitrate count would be they chose to wait... The ONLY explanation that occurs to me is that they were working to CONTAMINATE his hands and face. This fact alone is enough to create suspicion. Combined with the later fact of the presence of GSR on the WRONG side of the cheek cast, EVIDENCE TAMPERING becomes a virtual certainty. This fact should also be included in the bullet summary of GSR test results. The results were then lied about, which is tantamount to providing false evidence. With this in mind is there any doubt that "they" would have contaminated the actual evidence?

The only test results that were positive were the GSR tests on his hands. If a defense attorney like Mark Lane (who was selected by LHO's mother to represent LHO at the WC hearings, but rejected in favor of another) were allowed to defend LHO, other TSBD employees would have been given this same test. Considering that handling of cardboard boxes leaves nitrate on the hands, but not the face, It is a virtual certainty these "control" tests would have matched LHO. The fact that these tests were not accomplished, is an obvious indication that "they" feared the test results.

Combining the above, we are left with the conclusions:

1. the test results state he did NOT fire a rifle, and therefore did assassinate the President

2. the cheek cast was tampered with, so the hand cast evidence is almost certainly NOT unreliable.

3. the false reporting by DPD of "positive" results for the nitrate tests, and the "salting" of the cheek cast proves that those responsible for investigating the assassination were willing to tamper with the evidence, and had the means to do so.