...
>...
> > It's inconceivable that the FBI lab wouldn't have performed elementary
tests
> > on the rifle..... The FBI lab techs would have known that after
checking
> > the rifle thoroughly for latent prints and fibers it would be SOP to run
a
> > patch through the bore for and check for gunpwder residue. The
authorities
> > "claimed" the bore was never checked for evidence of recent firing.....
But
> > I'll bet it was. Simply because it's so fundamental. The results must
have
> > not supported their tale so they simply said the rifle wasn't tested.
> Is that what we are going to replace the WC finding with? With what
> you think probably must have happened?
I don't know what we're going to replace the W.C. decree with......I hope it
will be the truth, because I'm sick and tired of the lies.
> > Walt
> > "NoKetch" <noke...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20040125122122.21736.00000489@mb-m25.aol.com...
> > > >>The cops were desperate to tie Oswald and the rifle found in the
TSBD to
> > the
> > > >>shooting. The cops had the rifle. Why didn't they follow basic
procedure
> > and
> > > >>check whether the rifle had been fired by testing the interior of
the
> > barrel
> > > >>for bullet, primer, and powder residue? But lo and behold, this
wasn't
> > done.
> > > >>Why not? The conclusions i draw from this fact is that either they
knew
> > the
> > > >>rifle hadn't been used in the shooting, or they did check for
residue
> > and
> > the
> > > >>result was negative and this fact was concealed. The fact that they
> > didn't
> > test
> > > >>if the rifle had been recently fired suggests that the rifle had not
> > been
> > > >>recently fired. It was just used as a prop to implicate Oswald.
> > > >What test existed for them to use that would have been able to tell
if
> > > >any "bullet, primer, and powder residue" found was an hour old ... or
> > > >a month ... or a year?
> > > While searching the web for a possible answer to this question, i did
find
> > this
> > > interesting page on analysis of gunshot residue.
> > > http://www.jwharbert.com/gsranalysis.htm
> > > Here is a section that raised another question in my mind. Was the
window
> > frame
> > > and surrounding area in the so-called snipers nest tested for gunshot
> > residue?
> > > I think the answer is obvious, since if the rifle itself wasn't
tested,
> > > well....
> > > <quote>
> > > GSR residue comes out of the gun in "blowback". It exhausts from the
> > > muzzle, cylinder or any leaky areas in a cloud of residue. Conceivably
a
> > person
> > > standing beside the shooter will have GSR on his person. It is
unlikely
> > that it
> > > will be on a bystander's hands in threshold quantities. This should
be
> > noted
> > > because the SEM examination for GSR positively identifies actual
particles
> > of
> > > GSR. Using this test, it would be possible to positively identify
> > particles of
> > > GSR on an individual standing in the vicinity of the shooting. Tests
have
> > shown
> > > that residue in the emissions around a discharging gun will be
deposited
> > > several feet to each side and to the rear of the shooter. GSR has been
> > detected
> > > as much as 14 feet down range of the muzzle.
> > > <unquote>
> > > I'm still searching for info on how residue inside a rifle bore can be
> > tested
> > > for length of time since firing. I would think the characteristics of
> > gunshot
> > > residue change over time, and there should be a way to test this.
> > > >What I find somewhat striking is that there are no recorded comments
> > > >on what they did have at their disposal ... the sniff test. The smell
> > > >of recent firing should have been noticeable ... particularly when
the
> > > >bolt was worked.
> > > >Barb :-)
> > > >---"Our intention, is not to establish the point with
> > > > complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the
> > > > hypothesis which underlies the conclusion that
> > > > Oswald was the sole assassin."
> > > > (Redlich memo to Rankin, 4/64)
> > > Dave
