Summary of Results from Oswald's Paraffin Tests

[Tom Neal]

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

[Sandy Larsen]

Hi Sandy

This is not a bad theory, although you are missing one thing.

The bullet takes about .002 seconds to transit the length of the barrel before it exits. After the bullet exits, the propellant gases are no longer sealed in the barrel by the bullet. Even if the cartridge case did shrink, there is nothing in the barrel under pressure to escape past it.

It is interesting to note that, with a bullet passing through a barrel in .002 seconds, it is possible to wear out a barrel in just six seconds, or the equivalent of 3000 rounds passing through te barrel.

Robert,

Look again and you will see that I said the gas would escape before the bullet exits the barrel. It has to for the theory to work,

Of course, I'm assuming the cartridge can shrink that fast. I don't know if that's possible, but it doesn't have to shrink by much. Just enough for a gas to pass through.

[Sandy Larsen]

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 believe you're right about this. I have just updated The Summary to make this more clear.

I have to wonder whether the 1963 experts agreed with the above conclusion by the WC?

Good question. From what I've seen so far, the nitrate test looks useful for both positive and negative results, with the following caveats:

Positives: False positives from common items are possible. So the technician has to look

for the correct distribution of the nitrates on the trigger hand.

Negatives: A false negative can occur if the suspect washes his hands. So that possibility

needs to be taken into account.

Tom

Edited May 9, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

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.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Sandy

This is not a bad theory, although you are missing one thing.

The bullet takes about .002 seconds to transit the length of the barrel before it exits. After the bullet exits, the propellant gases are no longer sealed in the barrel by the bullet. Even if the cartridge case did shrink, there is nothing in the barrel under pressure to escape past it.

It is interesting to note that, with a bullet passing through a barrel in .002 seconds, it is possible to wear out a barrel in just six seconds, or the equivalent of 3000 rounds passing through te barrel.

Robert,

Look again and you will see that I said the gas would escape before the bullet exits the barrel. It has to for the theory to work,

Of course, I'm assuming the cartridge can shrink that fast. I don't know if that's possible, but it doesn't have to shrink by much. Just enough for a gas to pass through.

Hi Sandy

I don't believe you quite understand what takes place when a bullet is fired from a rifle.

While the temperature of expanding gases may drop dramatically, the propellant gases from the gunpowder are not merely expanding. Combustion takes place inside the cartridge, and combustion continues down the entire length of the barrel of the rifle. In other words, gunpowder is still burning right at the muzzle, as the bullet exits the barrel.

This is why military rifles, especially the shorter carbine length rifles, have a "flash eliminator" fitted to the muzzle of these rifles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor

As the article explains, its purpose is to reduce the visible signature of the burning gases exiting the muzzle of the barrel, proving that combustion takes place the entire length of the barrel.

If a bullet requires only .002 second to go from the cartridge to the muzzle of the barrel, I think it would be a fair statement to say that not only are the propellant gases pushing it burning and expanding right up until the bullet exits the barrel, they are also increasing, not decreasing, in temperature as the bullet travels down the barrel. The evidence of this is, I believe, the visible muzzle flash of a rifle fired at night, indicating combustion of gunpowder is still taking place at the muzzle of the rifle barrel.

Given that the bullet has left the barrel before the production of hot gases ceases, and that its departure dramatically drops the pressure inside the barrel, and that the cartridge can only cool and shrink after these pressures have been eliminated, I fail to see how any appreciable amount of gas can escape through the space between cartridge and chamber, simply because the cartridge has no chance of shrinking until the bullet leaves the barrel and combustion of gunpowder ceases.

Muzzle flash from Soviet Mosin Nagant M44 carbine

Edited May 10, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

I must confess that the gigantic fireball of a muzzle flash produced by the M44 carbine is an extreme case, and that I used this photo to dramatize the effect I was attempting to describe. However, while other rifles may produce smaller muzzle flashes, the muzzle flash is still present with these rifles; just not quite so large.

The reason this carbine and some other carbines and short rifles produce such large muzzle flashes has to do with the ammo they shoot.

The Mosin Nagant M44 carbine has a 20.2 inch long barrel, and this carbine was adapted from the original Mosin Nagant M91/30 long rifle with a barrel 29 inches long. The longer M91/30 was loaded with the 7.62x54mmR cartridge, and its extremely long barrel (much longer than a Winchester Model 70) allowed the majority of the gunpowder to burn up before the bullet left the muzzle, thus keeping the muzzle flash to a minimum.

When the M44 was introduced, with its almost 9 inch shorter barrel, no attempt was made to introduce a suitably smaller cartridge, such as was done when the American M1 carbine was introduced. The M44 was designed to fire the same 7.62x54mmR cartridge as was used in the longer M91/30 rifle. Consequently, there was simply "too much powder for the rifle" and a great deal of it burned up outside of the barrel.

Interestingly, precisely the same thing happened with the 6.5mm Carcano when the Italians introduced carbines (17 inch barrels) and short rifles (21 inch barrels). The original Carcano M91 long rifle had a 30 inch long barrel, and its 6.5x52mm cartridge was designed for this barrel. This cartridge was the same cartridge used by both the carbines and the short rifles. As you all know, Oswald's alleged rifle was a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle with a 21 inch barrel.

Not only did these carbines and short rifles, shooting cartridges designed for much longer rifles, produce great muzzle flashes, they were also very loud with so much of the combustion taking place outside the barrel. Just imagine how much of a bark was produced by a Carcano carbine with its puny 17 inch barrel!

With this in mind, I cannot help but to point out again how very puzzling the Altgens 6 photo is to me.

From what we are told, this photo corresponds to frame z255 of the Zapruder film. Depending on which version you believe, a short barrelled Carcano rifle firing ammo for a long rifle, has fired one and possibly two shots a mere 60 feet above the heads of the bystanders seen, and slightly to the rear of them, 3.5 to 5.2 seconds before this photo was taken.

And yet, not a single one of them looks remotely startled. How can this be? Those readers with any hunting or military shooting experience will understand exactly what I am getting at here. The unexpected report of a loud short barrelled rifle, ESPECIALY one slightly behind a person, produces instantaneous AND involuntary startle reactions, none of which are visible on the faces of the onlookers. Massive flinches, grimaces and withdrawals all around is what I would have expected to see.

As I have said before many times, the Altgens 6 photo is the most important piece of evidence in the entire case, and deciphering what it has to offer will lead us much closer to what actually took place that day.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Sandy Larsen]

Hi Sandy

This is not a bad theory, although you are missing one thing.

The bullet takes about .002 seconds to transit the length of the barrel before it exits. After the bullet exits, the propellant gases are no longer sealed in the barrel by the bullet. Even if the cartridge case did shrink, there is nothing in the barrel under pressure to escape past it.

It is interesting to note that, with a bullet passing through a barrel in .002 seconds, it is possible to wear out a barrel in just six seconds, or the equivalent of 3000 rounds passing through te barrel.

Robert,

Look again and you will see that I said the gas would escape before the bullet exits the barrel. It has to for the theory to work,

Of course, I'm assuming the cartridge can shrink that fast. I don't know if that's possible, but it doesn't have to shrink by much. Just enough for a gas to pass through.

Hi Sandy

I don't believe you quite understand what takes place when a bullet is fired from a rifle.

You're right, I did not know that combustion continues even until the time the bullet exits the barrel.

While the temperature of expanding gases may drop dramatically, the propellant gases from the gunpowder are not merely expanding. Combustion takes place inside the cartridge, and combustion continues down the entire length of the barrel of the rifle. In other words, gunpowder is still burning right at the muzzle, as the bullet exits the barrel.

This is why military rifles, especially the shorter carbine length rifles, have a "flash eliminator" fitted to the muzzle of these rifles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor

As the article explains, its purpose is to reduce the visible signature of the burning gases exiting the muzzle of the barrel, proving that combustion takes place the entire length of the barrel.

If a bullet requires only .002 second to go from the cartridge to the muzzle of the barrel, I think it would be a fair statement to say that not only are the propellant gases pushing it burning and expanding right up until the bullet exits the barrel, they are also increasing, not decreasing, in temperature as the bullet travels down the barrel. The evidence of this is, I believe, the visible muzzle flash of a rifle fired at night, indicating combustion of gunpowder is still taking place at the muzzle of the rifle barrel.

Given that the bullet has left the barrel before the production of hot gases ceases, and that its departure dramatically drops the pressure inside the barrel, and that the cartridge can only cool and shrink after these pressures have been eliminated, I fail to see how any appreciable amount of gas can escape through the space between cartridge and chamber, simply because the cartridge has no chance of shrinking until the bullet leaves the barrel and combustion of gunpowder ceases.

Muzzle flash from Soviet Mosin Nagant M44 carbine

To determine whether the cartridge is still heating up as the bullet travels down the barrel, you would need to know two things. First, what the temperature of the propellant is. Second, whether or not this is adding heat to the cartridge at a rate faster than the barrel -- acting as a heat sink -- is removing heat. If the propellant temperature is high enough, it wins. If not, the heat sink wins.

The heat sink has a lot going for it because it is very massive. It can sink heat away very quickly. The mass of the propellant, on the other hand, is minuscule. Not much heat needs to drawn from it to cool it down.

Of course, we know that the propellant as a whole is much hotter than the barrel. However, the portion of propellant that makes contact with the barrel is certainly far cooler, because the barrel is drawing its heat away. Unfortunately this is complicated by factors such as turbulent forces within the barrel.

This is a very complicated problem which I'm certain would be impossible to solve using principles of physics and math. It could possibly be solved with a computer-based simulation program. A far easier way to solve this, though, would be by experimentation. Just shoot the gun and look for GSRs escaping from the cartridge end of the barrel. If you detect GSRs, then the cartridge did indeed contract. (Either that or it didn't expand sufficiently in the first place. Or there is an imperfection in the cartridge/bore interface which is allowing propellant to escape.)

Actually, I just came up with another, very simple way of looking at the problem that may reveal the answer. Consider this... when the cartridge is expanded tight up against the bore wall, the cartridge can be considered as being part of the barrel. So, to know what the temperature of the cartridge is as the bullet is traveling down the barrel, one only needs to know the temperature of the bore's wall where propellant makes contact with it. Because the cartridge is essentially part of the bore wall, its temperature will be the same as the temperature of the bore wall which is in contact with the propellant.

My gut tells me that the temperature of the bore wall (particularly at a distance from the wall identical to the thickness of the cartridge sheet metal), is much, much cooler than the propellant temperature. Far closer to ambient temperature than propellant temperature.

[Sandy Larsen]

.... Not only did these carbines and short rifles, shooting cartridges designed for much longer rifles, produce great muzzle flashes, they were also very loud with so much of the combustion taking place outside the barrel. Just imagine how much of a bark was produced by a Carcano carbine with its puny 17 inch barrel!

With this in mind, I cannot help but to point out again how very puzzling the Altgens 6 photo is to me.

From what we are told, this photo corresponds to frame z255 of the Zapruder film. Depending on which version you believe, a short barrelled Carcano rifle firing ammo for a long rifle, has fired one and possibly two shots a mere 60 feet above the heads of the bystanders seen, and slightly to the rear of them, 3.5 to 5.2 seconds before this photo was taken.

And yet, not a single one of them looks remotely startled. How can this be? Those readers with any hunting or military shooting experience will understand exactly what I am getting at here. The unexpected report of a loud short barrelled rifle, ESPECIALY one slightly behind a person, produces instantaneous AND involuntary startle reactions, none of which are visible on the faces of the onlookers. Massive flinches, grimaces and withdrawals all around is what I would have expected to see.

As I have said before many times, the Altgens 6 photo is the most important piece of evidence in the entire case, and deciphering what it has to offer will lead us much closer to what actually took place that day.

Well, we know that the shots were described by many as auto backfires or firecrackers. We know from Altgens 6 that the sounds didn't cause much concern to the bystanders. (Though they could have flinched, since that would have occurred before Altgens 6 was taken.)

And we are reasonably certain that the sounds were made by high-powered rifle(s). (Are we not?)

So what can be deduced from all that? That the rifle(s) had long barrel(s)? Would that fit the testimony and the photo, Robert?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Here is a very simple way to look at this. Despite the fact the gunpowder burns right past the point the bullet exits the muzzle, some of the heat may be absorbed by the thick metal of the barrel, even though there is only .002 seconds for this transfer to take place. With only this tiny window in time for everything to take place, there is likely still gunpowder burning in the cartridge as the bullet exits the barrel.

If enough heat was absorbed by the barrel to cool the propellant gases to the point the brass cartridge began to shrink, wouldn't this also rob energy from the propellant gases, and drastically reduce the muzzle velocity of the bullet?

[Robert Prudhomme]

.... Not only did these carbines and short rifles, shooting cartridges designed for much longer rifles, produce great muzzle flashes, they were also very loud with so much of the combustion taking place outside the barrel. Just imagine how much of a bark was produced by a Carcano carbine with its puny 17 inch barrel!

With this in mind, I cannot help but to point out again how very puzzling the Altgens 6 photo is to me.

From what we are told, this photo corresponds to frame z255 of the Zapruder film. Depending on which version you believe, a short barrelled Carcano rifle firing ammo for a long rifle, has fired one and possibly two shots a mere 60 feet above the heads of the bystanders seen, and slightly to the rear of them, 3.5 to 5.2 seconds before this photo was taken.

And yet, not a single one of them looks remotely startled. How can this be? Those readers with any hunting or military shooting experience will understand exactly what I am getting at here. The unexpected report of a loud short barrelled rifle, ESPECIALY one slightly behind a person, produces instantaneous AND involuntary startle reactions, none of which are visible on the faces of the onlookers. Massive flinches, grimaces and withdrawals all around is what I would have expected to see.

As I have said before many times, the Altgens 6 photo is the most important piece of evidence in the entire case, and deciphering what it has to offer will lead us much closer to what actually took place that day.

Well, we know that the shots were described by many as auto backfires or firecrackers. We know from Altgens 6 that the sounds didn't cause much concern to the bystanders. (Though they could have flinched, since that would have occurred before Altgens 6 was taken.)

And we are reasonably certain that the sounds were made by high-powered rifle(s). (Are we not?)

So what can be deduced from all that? That the rifle(s) had long barrel(s)? Would that fit the testimony and the photo, Robert?

Nothing to do with the length of the barrel. More to do with whether or not the rifle was fitted with a suppressor (silencer) that would produce the firecracker sound. The muzzle blast would be eliminated, but the sound of the bullet breaking the sound barrier would still be heard, and would have a definite "crack" to it. I'm willing to bet the bullet that struck JFK in the back just missed the heads of the two SS agents looking around to see what just happened.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Look at it this way. Knowing a big cartridge in a short barrelled rifle produces a loud muzzle blast, there is simply no way a 6.5mm Carcano short rifle could have been fired from the Sniper's Nest a mere sixty feet above the heads of the onlookers in Atgens 6, 3.5 - 5.2 seconds before this photo was taken, without very obvious signs of reactions visible on these people.

[Sandy Larsen]

Here is a very simple way to look at this. Despite the fact the gunpowder burns right past the point the bullet exits the muzzle, some of the heat may be absorbed by the thick metal of the barrel, even though there is only .002 seconds for this transfer to take place. With only this tiny window in time for everything to take place, there is likely still gunpowder burning in the cartridge as the bullet exits the barrel.

If enough heat was absorbed by the barrel to cool the propellant gases to the point the brass cartridge began to shrink, wouldn't this also rob energy from the propellant gases, and drastically reduce the muzzle velocity of the bullet?

Well, I don't think that the cartridge contracts in size due to the propellant cooling off (though that does help), but rather because the cartridge is in tight contact with the barrel and the barrel draws away heat. In fact, if the contact between the cartridge and barrel were perfect, the cartridge temperature would be virtually the same as the barrel temperature. (I say "virtually" because, though brass and steel are great conductors of heat, they are not perfect.)

Electrical engineers study the transfer of heat to heat sinks because power resistors and transistors often need to be cooled, and passive heat-sinking is the cooling method of choice. (Because it is cheep.) When designing a heat sinking system, it is important to minimize the "thermal resistance" from the transistor to the heat sink so as not to delay the transfer of heat. The delay is zero if the thermal resistance is zero. And if there is zero delay, the temperature of the transistor will be precisely the same as the temperature of the heat sink. This despite the fact that heat is continually being produced inside the transistor. A near-zero resistance is accomplished by bolting the transistor directly to the heat sink. (In practice this usually can't be done because the transistor case needs to be electrically isolated from the heat sink.)

Similarly, if a cartridge were in perfect contact with the bore wall, the thermal resistance would be zero and the cartridge would be the same temperature as the barrel. And if that is the case, then the cartridge would contract to the point that it is no longer in tight contact with the bore wall. However, should the contact becomes sufficiently loose, the heat from the propellant would cause the cartridge to expand. The bottom line is the cartridge would be just tight enough against the bore wall that the heat entering it from the propellant would equal the heat loss from it to the barrel. The tightness of the fit would be self-regulating.

An analogy to this self-regulating concept would be a glass of ice water. If someone asked me what the temperature of the water is, I'd say right away and without measuring it that the temperature is precisely 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius). Because it has to be. If the temperature were any colder then the water would all freeze. If any warmer, then the ice would all melt. The only temperature at which ice and water can coexist is 32 (0) degrees. It is self regulating, just like the expansion of the rifle cartridge is self regulating.

[Sandy Larsen]

Look at it this way. Knowing a big cartridge in a short barrelled rifle produces a loud muzzle blast, there is simply no way a 6.5mm Carcano short rifle could have been fired from the Sniper's Nest a mere sixty feet above the heads of the onlookers in Atgens 6, 3.5 - 5.2 seconds before this photo was taken, without very obvious signs of reactions visible on these people.

I agree. Four seconds after the blast I would expect nearly everybody to either be looking around for the cause of the blast, or talking to their friends about it.

So 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?

Edited May 11, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

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."

[Tom Neal]

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.