info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The NAA Tests On Oswald's Paraffin Casts
123 views
Skip to first unread message
David Von Pein
Apr 27, 2016, 5:27:20 PM4/27/16
to
mainframetech
Apr 28, 2016, 5:38:51 PM4/28/16
to
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 5:27:20 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-116.html
Oh my! In his effort to get people to make hits on his website, DVP
has gotten into a fool's errand with the NAA/paraffin tests. Let's see
what the HSCA says on them:
"The paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek were also examined
by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Barium and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the
casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridge cases and the revolver
cartridge cases. 96 Since barium and antimony were present in both the
rifle and the revolver cartridge cases, their presence on the casts were
not evidence that Oswald had fired the rifle. Moreover, the presence on
the inside surface of the cheek cast of a lesser amount of barium, and
only a slightly greater amount of antimony, than was found on the outside
surface of the cast rendered it impossible to attach significance to the
presence of these elements on the inside surface. Since the outside
surface had not been in contact with Oswald's cheek, the barium and
antimony found there had come from a source other than Oswald.
Furthermore, while there was more barium and antimony present on the casts
than would normally be found on the hands of a person who had not fired a
weapon or handled a fired weapon, it is also true that barium and antimony
may be present in many common items; for example, barium may be present in
grease, ceramics, glass, paint, printing ink, paper, rubber, plastics,
leather, cloth, pyrotechnics, oilcloth and linoleum, storage batteries,
matches and cosmetics; antimony is present in matches, type metal, lead
alloys, paints and lacquers, pigments for oil and water colors, flameproof
textiles, storage batteries, pyrotechnics, rubber, pharmaceutical
preparations and calico; and both barium and antimony are present in
printed paper and cloth, paint, storage batteries, rubber, matches,
pyrotechnics, and possibly other items. However, the barium and antimony
present in these items are usually not present in a form which would lead
to their adhering to the skin of a person who had handled such items."
From: HSCA Appendix 10, page 562
Also see: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ptest.txt
Sounds like the paraffin tests can't be used to prove anything.
Also:
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/01/new-forensic-analysis-shoots-holes-jfk-assassination-report
Chris
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-116.html
Oh my! In his effort to get people to make hits on his website, DVP
has gotten into a fool's errand with the NAA/paraffin tests. Let's see
what the HSCA says on them:
"The paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek were also examined
by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Barium and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the
casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridge cases and the revolver
cartridge cases. 96 Since barium and antimony were present in both the
rifle and the revolver cartridge cases, their presence on the casts were
not evidence that Oswald had fired the rifle. Moreover, the presence on
the inside surface of the cheek cast of a lesser amount of barium, and
only a slightly greater amount of antimony, than was found on the outside
surface of the cast rendered it impossible to attach significance to the
presence of these elements on the inside surface. Since the outside
surface had not been in contact with Oswald's cheek, the barium and
antimony found there had come from a source other than Oswald.
Furthermore, while there was more barium and antimony present on the casts
than would normally be found on the hands of a person who had not fired a
weapon or handled a fired weapon, it is also true that barium and antimony
may be present in many common items; for example, barium may be present in
grease, ceramics, glass, paint, printing ink, paper, rubber, plastics,
leather, cloth, pyrotechnics, oilcloth and linoleum, storage batteries,
matches and cosmetics; antimony is present in matches, type metal, lead
alloys, paints and lacquers, pigments for oil and water colors, flameproof
textiles, storage batteries, pyrotechnics, rubber, pharmaceutical
preparations and calico; and both barium and antimony are present in
printed paper and cloth, paint, storage batteries, rubber, matches,
pyrotechnics, and possibly other items. However, the barium and antimony
present in these items are usually not present in a form which would lead
to their adhering to the skin of a person who had handled such items."
From: HSCA Appendix 10, page 562
Also see: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ptest.txt
Sounds like the paraffin tests can't be used to prove anything.
Also:
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2016/01/new-forensic-analysis-shoots-holes-jfk-assassination-report
Chris
David Von Pein
Apr 28, 2016, 11:39:43 PM4/28/16
to
Chris/Frame (as usual) can't read half of what is right before his orbs.
And he mangles the other half -- such as claiming the Page 562 citation is
from the "HSCA", when it's actually a quote straight out of the Warren
Report, confirming once more that the WC wasn't hiding any of the
pertinent facts about JFK's death and LHO, with the WC, in effect, telling
the world that the paraffin & NAA tests WERE, indeed, worthless.
And Chris apparently thinks that *I* did not prop up WCR Page 562 on my
webpage. But, of course, I did--multiple times....
[Quote On:]
"Jim DiEugenio's last post is another great big "SO WHAT?" post.
Jimmy seems to want people to believe that the Warren Commission was
HIDING the fact that the NAA and Paraffin/Nitrate tests were WORTHLESS for
determining if Oswald had fired a rifle or a revolver.
Jim seems to imply that the ONLY place we are able to find out about the
uselessless of the NAA/Paraffin tests are in memos distributed amongst the
WC members. But that's certainly not true at all. Because, as I just
pointed out (and linked to) in my previous post, the Warren Commission and
the FBI were not hiding anything regarding the NAA & Paraffin tests. The
WC says, right there on Page 562 of its public Report, that it is
Some cover-up there, huh?
Why is it the WC and FBI don't get ANY credit for their forthright HONESTY
about what we find on Page 562 of the WCR regarding Oswald's paraffin and
NAA tests, Jim? Why is that?
But the fact still remains that all CTers are wrong, and always will be,
when they try to say that Oswald's cheek cast had a negative result for
barium and antimony (the only two elements the NAA tests for, btw). Those
results were POSITIVE, not negative.
But even with a positive NAA result, we still find the WC being completely
honest about what that positive results MEANS --- they told us, on Page
562, that it really doesn't mean much of anything." -- DVP
And he mangles the other half -- such as claiming the Page 562 citation is
from the "HSCA", when it's actually a quote straight out of the Warren
Report, confirming once more that the WC wasn't hiding any of the
pertinent facts about JFK's death and LHO, with the WC, in effect, telling
the world that the paraffin & NAA tests WERE, indeed, worthless.
And Chris apparently thinks that *I* did not prop up WCR Page 562 on my
webpage. But, of course, I did--multiple times....
[Quote On:]
"Jim DiEugenio's last post is another great big "SO WHAT?" post.
Jimmy seems to want people to believe that the Warren Commission was
HIDING the fact that the NAA and Paraffin/Nitrate tests were WORTHLESS for
determining if Oswald had fired a rifle or a revolver.
Jim seems to imply that the ONLY place we are able to find out about the
uselessless of the NAA/Paraffin tests are in memos distributed amongst the
WC members. But that's certainly not true at all. Because, as I just
pointed out (and linked to) in my previous post, the Warren Commission and
the FBI were not hiding anything regarding the NAA & Paraffin tests. The
WC says, right there on Page 562 of its public Report, that it is
"impossible to attach significance to the presence of these elements" on
Oswald's paraffin casts.
Some cover-up there, huh?
Why is it the WC and FBI don't get ANY credit for their forthright HONESTY
about what we find on Page 562 of the WCR regarding Oswald's paraffin and
NAA tests, Jim? Why is that?
But the fact still remains that all CTers are wrong, and always will be,
when they try to say that Oswald's cheek cast had a negative result for
barium and antimony (the only two elements the NAA tests for, btw). Those
results were POSITIVE, not negative.
But even with a positive NAA result, we still find the WC being completely
honest about what that positive results MEANS --- they told us, on Page
562, that it really doesn't mean much of anything." -- DVP
mainframetech
Apr 29, 2016, 11:28:43 PM4/29/16
to
Go here to read about the FBI's public and private conclusions on the
tests, and their remaining quiet in certain cases:
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/NAA_and_assassination_II/FBI_tries_NAA.html
Chris
David Von Pein
Apr 30, 2016, 7:56:59 PM4/30/16
to
about the unreliability of the paraffin tests. You won't find one.
The paraffin tests prove *nothing*. Never did. So what does your "case
closed" remark refer to?
Anthony Marsh
May 1, 2016, 9:46:32 AM5/1/16
to
removes any doubt that the FBI's NAA results group the particles into
two groups or that the FBI knew this.
>
> Chris
>
bigdog
May 1, 2016, 8:38:07 PM5/1/16
to
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 11:28:43 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
paraffin tests as evidence of Oswald's guilt. I have seen plenty of
examples of CTs trying to use them to argue that they prove Oswald didn't
fire his rifle. The truth of the matter is these tests produce both false
positives and false negatives. They are practically useless in proving
whether someone has or has not fired a gun.
mainframetech
May 1, 2016, 9:51:19 PM5/1/16
to
statement "The evidence clearly indicates Oswald's guilt."
Which is misleading if someone doesn't read past that point. Which I'm
sure a number of folks do not.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
May 2, 2016, 3:35:32 PM5/2/16
to
mainframetech
May 2, 2016, 7:25:12 PM5/2/16
to
that try to use the info from the paraffin test, and I've had to research
it and put out the negative info on it.
Chris
bigdog
May 2, 2016, 10:16:14 PM5/2/16
to
> Which is misleading if someone doesn't read past that point. Which I'm
> sure a number of folks do not.
>
anyone needs to know.
OHLeeRedux
May 3, 2016, 10:12:59 AM5/3/16
to
Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -
You rely on HSCA pseudo-science.
- hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
May 3, 2016, 10:19:27 AM5/3/16
to
other WC defenders out there.
> examples of CTs trying to use them to argue that they prove Oswald didn't
> fire his rifle. The truth of the matter is these tests produce both false
We wouldn't expect blowback on his cheek.
> positives and false negatives. They are practically useless in proving
> whether someone has or has not fired a gun.
>
reliable as a polygraph.
As I said before, the PATTERN of stippling suggests firing a revolver.
>
>
mainframetech
May 3, 2016, 11:59:34 PM5/3/16
to
> > Which is misleading if someone doesn't read past that point. Which I'm
> > sure a number of folks do not.
> >
>
> They really don't need to. Knowing Oswald did it all by himself is all
> anyone needs to know.
world.
Chris
bigdog
May 4, 2016, 12:19:57 AM5/4/16
to
waiting for it.
Anthony Marsh
May 4, 2016, 1:34:54 PM5/4/16
to
now by the military and police to locate the source of gunfire.
Anthony Marsh
May 4, 2016, 2:06:14 PM5/4/16
to
Anthony Marsh
May 4, 2016, 10:38:47 PM5/4/16
to
You haven't even had the common decency to read Ken Rahn's excellent
articles.
OHLeeRedux
May 5, 2016, 10:21:04 AM5/5/16
to
Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -
idiots the HSCA hired. Their nonsense was thoroughly debunked long ago.
And no, you did not "debunk the debunkers." That is just more of your made
up crap.
- show quoted text -
That science was accepted in the Kent State Massacre case and is used
now by the military and police to locate the source of gunfire.
Real science is used for those things. Completely different than the
now by the military and police to locate the source of gunfire.
idiots the HSCA hired. Their nonsense was thoroughly debunked long ago.
And no, you did not "debunk the debunkers." That is just more of your made
up crap.
0 new messages