Jason Vermeer Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Pat, Weisberg must have conducted his own tests because the test performed by the WC produced false negatives on the cheeks with the weapon. It is meaningless to ascribe value to said test because the test itself was inaccurate. You cannot establish validity when reliability is so low period. Oswald's negative test is of no value. Nothing can be said of it. Jason Vermeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman T. Field Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Richard Nagell seems to think that LHO did fire a weapon. Could LHO have been duped into thinking he was the 'phony' killer who would just fire into the sky in a simulated assasination attempt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 (edited) Jason, It seems to me like firing that MC three times without getting nitrates on your cheek would be like eating a big plate of spaghetti and meat sauce without getting any sauce on your shirt. It simply can't be done. (That's why I have to wear a bib.) You also have to consider the lack of evidence that the MC was fired that day by anybody. IMO you seem to be grasping at straws, for the sake of what appears to be a pet theory. Perhaps you should put your pet theory to sleep? Ron Edited February 3, 2006 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 It's very hard to put pets to sleep. An aside (relating to a comment you made on another thread): Surely you would not kill your own grandmother even if the price was high enough? Sounds like the unsaved Charles Colson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Vermeer Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Jason,It seems to me like firing that MC three times without getting nitrates on your cheek would be like eating a big plate of spaghetti and meat sauce without getting any sauce on your shirt. It simply can't be done. (That's why I have to wear a bib.) You also have to consider the lack of evidence that the MC was fired that day by anybody. IMO you seem to be grasping at straws, for the sake of what appears to be a pet theory. Perhaps you should put your pet theory to sleep? Ron Ron, read the research on paraffin testing rather than casting the aspersion I am "grasping at straws" to save a "pet theory". If you walked into your doctors office with all the syptoms of an impending heart attack and your Doc picks up one of those "Magic eight balls", shakes it up and the message reads "MY SOURCES TELL ME NO" would YOU be satisfied with it? Probably want a more accurate test right? Oswald having nitrates on his cheeks and hands makes sense if he was shooting a weapon but the test they used to determine that was so unreliable YOU CANNOT USE IT TO RULE IN OR RULE OUT this activety. Any statement made insinuating Oswald had not fired the rifle that day due to a negative paraffin test is CHERRY PICKING THE EVIDENCE. You have to actually read the research on paraffin testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 And what is the evidence that anybody fired the 6th floor MC on 11/22/63? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Vermeer Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Multiple witnesses place a gun protruding from the 6th floor window. D.B. Thomas's study acoustically places shots from this location. The ejected shells are ballistically linked to the Carcano found hidden amongst the boxes. What evidence do you have Ron that rules out the Carcano being fired from the window that day? Jason Vermeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Ron, read the research on paraffin testing rather than casting the aspersion I am "grasping at straws" to save a "pet theory". If you walked into your doctors office with all the syptoms of an impending heart attack and your Doc picks up one of those "Magic eight balls", shakes it up and the message reads "MY SOURCES TELL ME NO" would YOU be satisfied with it? Probably want a more accurate test right? Oswald having nitrates on his cheeks and hands makes sense if he was shooting a weapon but the test they used to determine that was so unreliable YOU CANNOT USE IT TO RULE IN OR RULE OUT this activety. Any statement made insinuating Oswald had not fired the rifle that day due to a negative paraffin test is CHERRY PICKING THE EVIDENCE. You have to actually read the research on paraffin testing. Jason, while you are almost certainly correct that paraffin testing lacks the reliability to say 100% one way or the other (much as Neutron Activation Analysis), my understanding is that it was FAR more likely to show a false positive than a false negative. If memory serves, Weisberg was able to find memos relating to the FBI testing of the ACCURACY of the rifle that reflected that every shooter ended up with nitrates on his face. Since the paraffin tests were done by the DPD, and the FBI immediately dismissed their relevance, I don't believe there ever was an official test to show whether nitrates would get on someone's cheek from Oswald's weapon. As I remember this was something Weisberg, who before the ARRB had effected the release of more documents than all the rest of the media and research community combined, was able to uncover on his own. I'll try to find the reference. If this reference exists, of course, it should have been included in the Warren Report as possible exculpatory evidence. Evidence that SUGGESTS innocence should be noted where available, even if it does not conclusively prove something. Your refusal to attach any value to the paraffin tests is indeed puzzling. It's as if Baker and Truly said that they weren't sure it was Oswald they saw on the second floor, and Billie Lovelady said he thought he saw Oswald outside, and you said, "never mind those crackers, they're a bunch of beer-drinkers with bad memories..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I know that witnesses saw a gun at the window. I'm asking if anyone did any kind of test on the MC that was found hidden, as to whether it had been fired at all that day. Anybody can put some shells on the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Multiple witnesses place a gun protruding from the 6th floor window. D.B. Thomas's study acoustically places shots from this location. The ejected shells are ballistically linked to the Carcano found hidden amongst the boxes. What evidence do you have Ron that rules out the Carcano being fired from the window that day? Jason Vermeer Jason, IMO Ron's question remains valid. It took a very logical New York woman who had probably never fired a weapon (Sylvia Meagher) to point out long ago that no one, not the DPD and not the FBI, had examined the rifle to see if had been recently fired, or even to see if it had been fired since its last cleaning. Fritz could have smelled the barrel, and he could have drawn back the bolt, held the stock end towards the light, and looked down the barrel from the front to see if held the residue of gunpowder, but he never did so (or if he did, he kept his findings secret). No argument that the shells came from the Carcano, the question is: When were they fired? Now that Dr. Guinn's NAA technique has been rejected by the courts, abandoned by the FBI, and disavowed by its chief proponent G. Robert Blakey, we are back to square one on whether CE399 and the limo fragments were planted. Recall that none of these projectiles contained the slightest trace of blood or human tissue, which they should have done if they really had passed through human beings. The HSCA accoustics experts claimed 3 shots from the TSBD, but the National Academy of Science threw a big bucket of freezing water on that one, and I expect the panel currently investigaing the accoustics will confirm the NAS results. "Multiple witnesses place a gun protruding from the 6th floor window." It might be helpful if you could refresh us on who these witnesses were. Howard Brennan certainly was one, although he said he did not see the weapon actually being fired. According to Edward Epstein, WC staffer Joseph Ball said that during a reenactment Brennan, standing exactly where he stood on Nov. 22nd, could not even see a man in the sniper's nest, let alone a rifle. Another one who comes to mind is (Jackson?) a white house press cameraman who thought so little of the TSBD that he did not even take a photo, and then left Dealey Plaza without reporting what he "saw" to any of the policemen who were swarming around the area and, if Jackson can be believed, heading in the wrong direction. A most civic-minded individual, this white house press photographer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Vermeer Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Ron, read the research on paraffin testing rather than casting the aspersion I am "grasping at straws" to save a "pet theory". If you walked into your doctors office with all the syptoms of an impending heart attack and your Doc picks up one of those "Magic eight balls", shakes it up and the message reads "MY SOURCES TELL ME NO" would YOU be satisfied with it? Probably want a more accurate test right? Oswald having nitrates on his cheeks and hands makes sense if he was shooting a weapon but the test they used to determine that was so unreliable YOU CANNOT USE IT TO RULE IN OR RULE OUT this activety. Any statement made insinuating Oswald had not fired the rifle that day due to a negative paraffin test is CHERRY PICKING THE EVIDENCE. You have to actually read the research on paraffin testing. Jason, while you are almost certainly correct that paraffin testing lacks the reliability to say 100% one way or the other (much as Neutron Activation Analysis), my understanding is that it was FAR more likely to show a false positive than a false negative. If memory serves, Weisberg was able to find memos relating to the FBI testing of the ACCURACY of the rifle that reflected that every shooter ended up with nitrates on his face. Since the paraffin tests were done by the DPD, and the FBI immediately dismissed their relevance, I don't believe there ever was an official test to show whether nitrates would get on someone's cheek from Oswald's weapon. As I remember this was something Weisberg, who before the ARRB had effected the release of more documents than all the rest of the media and research community combined, was able to uncover on his own. I'll try to find the reference. If this reference exists, of course, it should have been included in the Warren Report as possible exculpatory evidence. Evidence that SUGGESTS innocence should be noted where available, even if it does not conclusively prove something. Your refusal to attach any value to the paraffin tests is indeed puzzling. It's as if Baker and Truly said that they weren't sure it was Oswald they saw on the second floor, and Billie Lovelady said he thought he saw Oswald outside, and you said, "never mind those crackers, they're a bunch of beer-drinkers with bad memories..." Pat, if you can locate the Weisberg documents that would be great because right now all I have is WC testing rapid fire shots out of the Carcano with NO paraffin residue on the cheek as well as a variety of other reviews regarding the lack of sensitivety of the tests...My refusal to attach value to the paraffin tests shouldn't be puzzling at all. The fact that Oswald's hand's tested positive I also refuse to attach value to. If I WERE to attach value to the nitrate test as being an adequate and sensitive measure of nitrates as deposited by gunpowder....well, one might say oswald shot someone with a handgun then. Can't do that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 "Multiple witnesses place a gun protruding from the 6th floor window." It might be helpful if you could refresh us on who these witnesses were. Howard Brennan certainly was one, although he said he did not see the weapon actually being fired. According to Edward Epstein, WC staffer Joseph Ball said that during a reenactment Brennan, standing exactly where he stood on Nov. 22nd, could not even see a man in the sniper's nest, let alone a rifle. Another one who comes to mind is (Jackson?) a white house press cameraman who thought so little of the TSBD that he did not even take a photo, and then left Dealey Plaza without reporting what he "saw" to any of the policemen who were swarming around the area and, if Jackson can be believed, heading in the wrong direction. A most civic-minded individual, this white house press photographer. You're being unfair to Jackson, who was in the motorcade and followed the story where it led him. He was out of film, but pointed out the rifle to Tom Dillard, who missed the rifle but snapped the shot of Norman and Williams right after the shots. Jackson went on to get the shot of Ruby killing Oswald, for which he won a Pulitzer, if memory serves. He was also instrumental in breaking the Watergate story, as I remember. I believe he was the one who first interviewed Baldwin. Other credible witnesses include Amos Euins, James Worrell and Dearie Cabell. There was a shooter in the sniper's nest. That doesn't mean it was Oswald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 "Multiple witnesses place a gun protruding from the 6th floor window." It might be helpful if you could refresh us on who these witnesses were. Howard Brennan certainly was one, although he said he did not see the weapon actually being fired.Other credible witnesses include Amos Euins, James Worrell and Dearie Cabell. There was a shooter in the sniper's nest. That doesn't mean it was Oswald. The eyewitnesses adequately support a conclusion that a gun was sticking out of the SE TSBD window. T.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Vermeer Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Ron and Mr. Carroll....Can you enlighten me and tell me what accurate test was available in 1963 that would indicate whether or not a rifle had been recently fired? Jason Vermeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Ron and Mr. Carroll....Can you enlighten me and tell me what accurate test was available in 1963 that would indicate whether or not a rifle had been recently fired? Jason Vermeer All I know about establishing the recent firing of a weapon is what I've seen in the movies: the smell test. T.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now