Summary of Results from Oswald's Paraffin Tests

[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...

Edited May 17, 2016 by Tom Neal

[James DiEugenio]

If I recall correctly, Tom Rossley said that the drawings of the nitrate tests from DPD indicate that the particles are on the wrong side of the hand of someone who was supposed to fire a pistol.

Well, keep up the good work Tom. Hopefully the actually raw data will be at Weisberg's archives. Nobody tried harder than he did to get the actual results.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

Hi Tom

When the muzzle blast of C2766 was recorded at 130 decibels, during the re-enactment, do you know where the person recording the sound was in relation to the muzzle of this rifle? In other words, was he behind the rifle, 90° to the side of the rifle, or within a 120° cone measured just forward of the muzzle?

I cannot seem to find any information on this, and the placement of testing equipment in relation to the rifle's muzzle is quite critical, as there is a massive difference in subjective sound levels, measured in decibels, between being behind a rifle fired, 90° to the side of the muzzle or just slightly ahead of the muzzle and within 60° of the path of the bullet, as were the majority of onlookers on Elm St.

I should add that 120 decibels is considered the "threshold of pain", and that every 10 decibel (dB) increase means a tenfold increase in sound. In other words, a 130 (dB) sound is 10 times louder than a 120 dB sound, and a 140 dB sound is 100 times louder than a 120 dB sound, etc. With its short barrel and cartridge designed for a long rifle, I would venture the recorded level of 130 dB for C2766 to be a bit low, unless the man recording the sound was nowhere near the muzzle of the rifle when it was fired.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[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.

Hi Tom

When the muzzle blast of C2766 was recorded at 130 decibels, during the re-enactment, do you know where the person recording the sound was in relation to the muzzle of this rifle? In other words, was he behind the rifle, 90° to the side of the rifle, or within a 120° cone measured just forward of the muzzle?

I cannot seem to find any information on this, and the placement of testing equipment in relation to the rifle's muzzle is quite critical, as there is a massive difference in subjective sound levels, measured in decibels, between being behind a rifle fired, 90° to the side of the muzzle or just slightly ahead of the muzzle and within 60° of the path of the bullet, as were the majority of onlookers on Elm St.

I should add that 120 decibels is considered the "threshold of pain", and that every 10 decibel (dB) increase means a tenfold increase in sound. In other words, a 130 (dB) sound is 10 times louder than a 120 dB sound, and a 140 dB sound is 100 times louder than a 120 dB sound, etc. With its short barrel and cartridge designed for a long rifle, I would venture the recorded level of 130 dB for C2766 to be a bit low, unless the man recording the sound was nowhere near the muzzle of the rifle when it was fired.

Bob, I just now responded to your other thread.

I believe the 130 db and the statement that no one had ANY difficulty determining the origin of the test-shots came from Don Thomas' book which I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread. I no longer have the book so I can't verify this.

The 120 db threshold of pain that you cited came from a study I was part of, which was used to require ear protection be provided for the ramp workers at major airports serving large jets. It did NOT endear us to management, but interestingly enough we received letters of commendation from the USAF and Air National Guard. The accepted criteria at the time was the range of 120-140db was the danger zone with hearing protection required above 140 and "suggested" above 120. As you stated, 140 db is one hell of a lot louder that 120.

Tom

Edited May 18, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

If I recall correctly, Tom Rossley said that the drawings of the nitrate tests from DPD indicate that the particles are on the wrong side of the hand of someone who was supposed to fire a pistol.

Well, keep up the good work Tom. Hopefully the actually raw data will be at Weisberg's archives. Nobody tried harder than he did to get the actual results.

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the encouragement. I agree precisely with Tom Rossley. Do you have a source for him - I'd like to read it. According to Mark Lane's early reports including "Rush to Judgement" he states that the plywood floor that was being laid was "freshly painted". You can't get a more likely source of contamination than that. LHO has a VERY strong nitrate present on the inside of the fingers of his right hand. A likely source of this would be carrying a sheer of plywood held vertically and gripping the edge. The areas between his hand inside of his thumbs could be created by "pinching" between hand and thumb.

If the raw data is present at Hood, I have at least so far been unable to find it.

Rather than post the documents as he indicated, I imagine Mr. Speer will simply post whatever his interpretation of the contents happens to be. If so, I will purchase the CD that Mr. Speer mentions and ask for the source for permission to post the entire doc/

Tom

BTW,

I'm still looking for the Wallace Milam/ Margaret Henchliffe interview. I have found the law firm that Milam did the interview for and I'm hoping they will be allowed to send me a copy. I await their reply...

[James DiEugenio]

Nice work Tom.

I will see about Rossley.

[James DiEugenio]

From Tom Rossley:

The paraffin test on Oswald's hands were Positive.

Nitrates can be obtained from any number of sources.

i.e, Paper, Wood, Cardboard Paint & Urine to name a few.

The problem with the positive nitrates on Oswald's hands is that most nitrates were on the "Palm Side"

When obtaining nitrates from a weapon, the nitrates are on the back side of the hand due to the palm side being ON the weapon.

Paraffin tests of Oswald's hands are below from the Dallas Police website.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/

Notice that the nitrates are on the Palm side of Oswald's hands.

When firing a weapon the nitrates are on the Back side of the hand because the Palm side is covered by the weapon.

Nitrates are caused by several other sources such as, Paper, Cardboard, wood, Paint & Urine.

Oswald's job was to handle Cardboard boxes of paper books on the 6th floor which was getting a New floor laid on 11/22/63.

[James DiEugenio]

I thought this was also interesting from Tom:

This unexpected result, which suggests that the gunshot residue levels

were too low to conclude Oswald had recently fired a rifle, becomes
even more intriguing when one considers that researcher Harold
Weisberg, through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, received the
controls for this test and found that gunshot residue was always
present on the cheeks of those firing a rifle like Oswald's (Weisberg,
Post Mortem, p. 437). These controls, moreover, confirmed what Guinn
had told the FBI in his phone call, (the FBI document describing this
phone call is listed in McKnight's book as R.M Jevons to Conrad
2/27/64 memo), what Guinn told an August 1964 conference (Lane, Rush
to Judgment, p. 153), what Guinn published in an October 1964 article
in the Journal of the Forensic Science Society (p. 189), and what
Guinn later told Turner (Turner, Invisible Witness, p. 76).

[Tom Neal]

From Tom Rossley:

The paraffin test on Oswald's hands were Positive.

Nitrates can be obtained from any number of sources.

i.e, Paper, Wood, Cardboard Paint & Urine to name a few.

The problem with the positive nitrates on Oswald's hands is that most nitrates were on the "Palm Side"

When obtaining nitrates from a weapon, the nitrates are on the back side of the hand due to the palm side being ON the weapon.

Paraffin tests of Oswald's hands are below from the Dallas Police website.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/

Notice that the nitrates are on the Palm side of Oswald's hands.

When firing a weapon the nitrates are on the Back side of the hand because the Palm side is covered by the weapon.

Nitrates are caused by several other sources such as, Paper, Cardboard, wood, Paint & Urine.

Oswald's job was to handle Cardboard boxes of paper books on the 6th floor which was getting a New floor laid on 11/22/63.

Thanks, Jim!

I heartily agree with all of the above.

Another thing to consider is that either LHO fired 5 shots into JD Tippitt, or he fired ZERO shots. I'm still researching this, but every time he fired that pistol it blew "X" number of particles onto the same area of his hands. The total amount on his hands would be 5X. That means those drawings depict the amount 5X. For a single shot there would be 1/5 of the dots depicted on this diagram. At most I count 14 particles on the back of his right hand. 14/5=2.8

So 1 shot would have deposited 2.8 particles on the back of his hand. Kind of hard to believe that would be a "Positive"...

Tom

Edited May 18, 2016 by Tom Neal

[James DiEugenio]

Good observation Tom.

[Pat Speer]

"The amount of deposit is not linear with the number of firings...One possible explanation is that additional blasts blow or shake off some of the deposits."

[Sandy Larsen]

Typical GSR Distribution vs Oswald's GSR Distribution

Notes on color photos:

Source: Terminal Ballistics: A Text and Atlas of Gunshot Wounds by Malcolm J. Dodd, 2005

Note: Finely divided spray-on graphite has been used to highlight the areas of GSR distribution.

As can be seen in the photos, the typical distribution of gunshot residue lies primarily along the top and back of the index finger and thumb. But there is also some residue on the palm side of those fingers, as the hand doesn't fit with the gun's grip perfectly.

The similarity between Oswald's right hand and the photos isn't very impressive. There are nine nitrate specks at the junction of the thumb and forefinger on the backside of Oswald's right hand but none on his left hand. And a few on the backside of his right thumb. That seems underwhelming to me considering he had allegedly shot his revolver (a very leaky gun) five times. And there's nothing at all on the palm side of his right hand to indicate he had shot a gun.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

"The amount of deposit is not linear with the number of firings...One possible explanation is that additional blasts blow or shake off some of the deposits."

I just want to comment that, in my searches for this thread, I did come across a statement in a modern (post-1995) book that says that the deposits do accumulate. I would have made a note of it had I known that there might be some disagreement on the subject.

[Pat Speer]

"The amount of deposit is not linear with the number of firings...One possible explanation is that additional blasts blow or shake off some of the deposits."

I just want to comment that, in my searches for this thread, I did come across a statement in a modern (post-1995) book that says that the deposits do accumulate. I would have made a note of it had I known that there might be some disagreement on the subject.

They accumulate but not in a linear fashion. I saw that someone was under the impression there was a linear relationship between the number of shots fired and the amount of residue. And the articles and textbooks I've read dealing with this subject insist this just isn't true.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"The amount of deposit is not linear with the number of firings...One possible explanation is that additional blasts blow or shake off some of the deposits."

I just want to comment that, in my searches for this thread, I did come across a statement in a modern (post-1995) book that says that the deposits do accumulate. I would have made a note of it had I known that there might be some disagreement on the subject.

They accumulate but not in a linear fashion. I saw that someone was under the impression there was a linear relationship between the number of shots fired and the amount of residue. And the articles and textbooks I've read dealing with this subject insist this just isn't true.

If they do accumulate, shot by shot, but not in a linear fashion, in what fashion do they accumulate, Pat? The word "accumulate" tends to imply that, with each shot, there would be more GSR on a person's hands.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme