David Von Pein Doesn't Know The Meaning Of A "Positive" Test...

[Ben Holmes]

David Von Pein:
> Now he demands that I cite that the NAA cheek test shows "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!

Oh?

How many times have you asserted that the test had a "positive" result? A test who's SOLE GOAL WAS TO DETERMINE IF OSWALD HAD FIRED A WEAPON?

Watch as David runs from this...

[David Von Pein]

A "Positive" result on the Paraffin tests OR the NAA tests does NOT equate to "Oswald fired a rifle". I've never maintained that it has; and, more importantly, the Warren Commission never maintained that a "POSITIVE" result on a Paraffin or an NAA test meant that Oswald was guilty (see WCR, pp.561-562 for proof of that).

These facts have been pointed out to Holmes numerous times already. But since he's got a cinder block for a head, things just don't sink in properly.

To prove my point (again)....

We know that Oswald's HANDS tested "Positive" for nitrates during the standard paraffin test done by the DPD.

But did the WC use that "POSITIVE" result to try and say that that meant LHO was guilty of firing a gun?

Answer--No. They did not. Just go to pages 560-562 of the Warren Report to verify that fact.

For some reason, Ben acts as if pages 560 to 562 of the Warren Commission's Final Report don't even exist. Go figure. ~shrug~

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0292b.htm

Plus....

The WCR page that Ben mentioned the other day (Page 180) is, indeed, also a good page for proving my point about how the WC didn't view Oswald's "Positive" paraffin results on his hands as any kind of PROOF that he had fired a gun. So we can add that page (180) to Pages 560-562 as well.

Thanks for pointing that out, Ben. Because it's another very good example illustrating the Warren Commission's complete honesty and non-biased attitude when discussing the results of Lee Harvey Oswald's paraffin tests....

WCR, p.180:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0102b.htm

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 10:08:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > David Von Pein:
> > > Now he demands that I cite that the NAA cheek test shows "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!
> >
> > Oh?
> >
> > How many times have you asserted that the test had a "positive" result? A test who's SOLE GOAL WAS TO DETERMINE IF OSWALD HAD FIRED A WEAPON?
> >
> > Watch as David runs from this...
>
> A "Positive" result on the Paraffin tests OR the NAA tests does NOT equate to "Oswald fired a rifle".

Yes moron, it does.

The test is to determine if someone FIRED A WEAPON... that's what the test is for.

That's the ONLY REASON it was conducted.

No-one would be interested if the NAA detected elements normally used in lipstick.

No-one would care at all if the NAA showed shaving cream.

The only purpose was to determine if Oswald had fired a weapon.

The *BEST* that could be said was that Oswald had *HANDLED* a recently fired handgun - in complete contradiction to the tests that Guinn had performed, which showed beyond doubt that those who'd fired a rifle, HAD fired a rifle.

(A fact you refuse to publicly admit!)

>I've never maintained that it has;

You've never been in the habit of making it clear that to *YOU* a "positive" test has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one has fired a rifle.

Which is why I keep correcting you - and you CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO CORRECT YOUR WEBSITE.

> and, more importantly, the Warren Commission never maintained that a "POSITIVE" result on a Paraffin or an NAA test meant that Oswald was guilty (see WCR, pp.561-562 for proof of that).

How could they? Their experts denied that the ACTUAL test results could be positive for firing a weapon.

They didn't compare these tests to the ones that Guinn did - that *DID* show quite positively when someone had fired a weapon.

You're pretending that the NAA test NEVER CAN tell if someone has fired a weapon...

That's a lie.

> These facts have been pointed out to Holmes numerous times already. But since he's got a cinder block for a head, things just don't sink in properly.

You'll keep lying, and I'll keep pointing 'em out.

(And these refutations will *NEVER* appear on your website - you always **apparently** have the last word, despite the true fact that you always run from my responses...)

> To prove my point (again)....
>
> We know that Oswald's HANDS tested "Positive" for nitrates during the standard paraffin test done by the DPD.

That doesn't, however; mean that he'd *FIRED* a handgun - as the experts make crystal clear.

You refuse to publicly acknowledge that fact.

Why the cowardice, David? Why are you so afraid of the truth?

What would you say the odds were that Givens, for example, would have had a "positive" test on *HIS* hands that same day?

(Yes, I know you won't honestly answer that... I leave it to lurkers to find out what the real answer should be)

> But did the WC use that "POSITIVE" result to try and say that that meant LHO was guilty of firing a gun?

The DPD did - as you well know. They even lied about the cheek cast...

The Warren Commission knew that the results were exculpatory, so they refused to be caught in an obvious lie.

But they lied nevertheless... in their refusal to address Guinn's NAA tests, just as *YOU* do.

> Answer--No. They did not. Just go to pages 560-562 of the Warren Report to verify that fact.

You're lying again, David.

> For some reason, Ben acts as if pages 560 to 562 of the Warren Commission's Final Report don't even exist. Go figure. ~shrug~
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0292b.htm

You're lying again, David.

Indeed, I schooled you on that citation... you pretend my response never happened.

Why the cowardice, David?

WHY DID YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY PREVIOUS ANSWER TO THIS???

> Plus....
>
> The WCR page that Ben mentioned the other day (Page 180) is,

Tut tut tut, David... YOU JUST GOT THROUGH LYING ABOUT HOW I ACT AS IF THE PAGES REFERENCED IN THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT DON'T EXIST.

Now you acknowledge my response ON THAT VERY ISSUE!

You owe me an apology for your blatant misrepresentation of what I've stated.

> indeed, also a good page for proving my point about how the WC didn't view Oswald's "Positive" paraffin results on his hands as any kind of PROOF that he had fired a gun. So we can add that page (180) to Pages 560-562 as well.

Yep... you've been schooled.

What you cannot do is provide the citation to Guinn's test results that the Warren Commission provided.

They didn't provide them.

They buried them.

For a very good reason.

THEY KNEW THAT THIS MEANT THAT THE NAA TEST DEMONSTRATED THAT OSWALD HAD NOT FIRED A RIFLE.

> Thanks for pointing that out, Ben. Because it's another very good example illustrating the Warren Commission's complete honesty and non-biased attitude when discussing the results of Lee Harvey Oswald's paraffin tests....

You're a liar, David.

I've previously gone over their "complete honesty and non-biased attitude" - and you ran like a dog.

YOU RAN LIKE A DOG!!!

Just as you'll run again from explaining why the Warren Commission buried Guinn's **NAA** test results.

RUN DAVID, RUN!
SEE DAVID RUN!
WHAT A COWARD DAVID IS!

> WCR, p.180:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0102b.htm

[David Von Pein]

No, it's not. Because Barium and Antimony are present in many ordinary common things like cloth, paper, matches, paint, and rubber. The chances of the B&A adhering to somebody's skin after coming into contact with those common items are smaller than it is with, say, getting nitrates on your hands after urinating and not washing your hands, but the possibility of getting a positive Barium & Antimony result after handling all sorts of common household items is still a definite *possibility* that can't be completely ignored.

Would you like to just ignore the POSSIBILITY of those other common items being the cause of a person's "Positive" NAA test result, Ben? If so, then I guess I should say, Great! Because I guess that means you think Oswald's POSITIVE NAA result on his cheek can ONLY be interpreted as "Oswald Fired A Gun". That's good to know, Ben. Thanks.

Re: pg. 180, not pages 560-562, moron. Try again, prick.

> You owe me an apology for your blatant misrepresentation of what I've stated.
>

Fat chance, kook.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 11:01:31 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:34:08 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 8:51:35 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 10:08:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > David Von Pein:
> > > > > Now he demands that I cite that the NAA cheek test shows "that Oswald fired a rifle". Which is something I have NEVER contended or maintained--ever!
> > > >
> > > > Oh?
> > > >
> > > > How many times have you asserted that the test had a "positive" result? A test who's SOLE GOAL WAS TO DETERMINE IF OSWALD HAD FIRED A WEAPON?
> > > >
> > > > Watch as David runs from this...
> > >
> > > A "Positive" result on the Paraffin tests OR the NAA tests does NOT equate to "Oswald fired a rifle".
> >
> > Yes moron, it does.
> >
> > The test is to determine if someone FIRED A WEAPON... that's what the test is for.
> >
> > That's the ONLY REASON it was conducted.

Crickets...

> > No-one would be interested if the NAA detected elements normally used in lipstick.
> >
> > No-one would care at all if the NAA showed shaving cream.
> >
> > The only purpose was to determine if Oswald had fired a weapon.
> >
> > The *BEST* that could be said was that Oswald had *HANDLED* a recently fired handgun - in complete contradiction to the tests that Guinn had performed, which showed beyond doubt that those who'd fired a rifle, HAD fired a rifle.
> >
> > (A fact you refuse to publicly admit!)

And *STILL* refuse to acknowledge!!!

> > >I've never maintained that it has;
> >
> > You've never been in the habit of making it clear that to *YOU* a "positive" test has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one has fired a rifle.
> >
> > Which is why I keep correcting you - and you CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO CORRECT YOUR WEBSITE.
> >
> >
> > > and, more importantly, the Warren Commission never maintained that a "POSITIVE" result on a Paraffin or an NAA test meant that Oswald was guilty (see WCR, pp.561-562 for proof of that).
> >
> >
> > How could they? Their experts denied that the ACTUAL test results could be positive for firing a weapon.
> >
> > They didn't compare these tests to the ones that Guinn did - that *DID* show quite positively when someone had fired a weapon.
> >
> > You're pretending that the NAA test NEVER CAN tell if someone has fired a weapon...
> >
> > That's a lie.
> >
>
> No, it's not.

There you go again...

Simply *CITE* the relevant expert on this issue.

Guinn, for example...

But you won't... you're lying.

> Because Barium and Antimony are present in many ordinary common things like cloth, paper, matches, paint, and rubber. The chances of the B&A adhering to somebody's skin after coming into contact with those common items are smaller than it is with, say, getting nitrates on your hands after urinating and not washing your hands, but the possibility of getting a positive Barium & Antimony result after handling all sorts of common household items is still a definite *possibility* that can't be completely ignored.

Yes, it can be.

For the PRECISE reason that you've not addressed yet. But until you can admit the basic facts, I'll refrain from schooling you on this issue.

> Would you like to just ignore the POSSIBILITY of those other common items being the cause of a person's "Positive" NAA test result, Ben?

You're too busy molesting children to *EVER* point out any place where I've made this argument.

> If so, then I guess I should say, Great! Because I guess that means you think Oswald's POSITIVE NAA result on his cheek can ONLY be interpreted as "Oswald Fired A Gun". That's good to know, Ben. Thanks.

And yet, I've told you time and time again that it's *NOT* a "positive" test, and you've run REPEATEDLY from the issue of controls.

In other words, YOU'RE A LIAR.

And if lying is all you have to debate with, then you've lost.

> > > These facts have been pointed out to Holmes numerous times already. But since he's got a cinder block for a head, things just don't sink in properly.
> >
> >
> > You'll keep lying, and I'll keep pointing 'em out.
> >
> > (And these refutations will *NEVER* appear on your website - you always **apparently** have the last word, despite the true fact that you always run from my responses...)
> >
> >
> > > To prove my point (again)....
> > >
> > > We know that Oswald's HANDS tested "Positive" for nitrates during the standard paraffin test done by the DPD.
> >
> > That doesn't, however; mean that he'd *FIRED* a handgun - as the experts make crystal clear.
> >
> > You refuse to publicly acknowledge that fact.

And *STILL* refuse to publicly acknowledge that FACT.

> > Why the cowardice, David? Why are you so afraid of the truth?
> >
> > What would you say the odds were that Givens, for example, would have had a "positive" test on *HIS* hands that same day?
> >
> > (Yes, I know you won't honestly answer that... I leave it to lurkers to find out what the real answer should be)

And, as predicted, David RAN LIKE A YELLOW WIMP when faced with a simple question.

He knows that the *honest* answer to the question would demolish his arguments.

My guess is that David hasn't a clue what might cause Givens to have a positive paraffin reaction.

> > > But did the WC use that "POSITIVE" result to try and say that that meant LHO was guilty of firing a gun?
> >
> > The DPD did - as you well know. They even lied about the cheek cast...

More crickets...

> > The Warren Commission knew that the results were exculpatory, so they refused to be caught in an obvious lie.
> >
> > But they lied nevertheless... in their refusal to address Guinn's NAA tests, just as *YOU* do.

More silence... Why the cowardice, David?

> > > Answer--No. They did not. Just go to pages 560-562 of the Warren Report to verify that fact.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, David.
> >
> >
> > > For some reason, Ben acts as if pages 560 to 562 of the Warren Commission's Final Report don't even exist. Go figure. ~shrug~
> > >
> > > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0292b.htm
> >
> > You're lying again, David.
> >
> > Indeed, I schooled you on that citation... you pretend my response never happened.
> >
> > Why the cowardice, David?
> >
> > WHY DID YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS MY PREVIOUS ANSWER TO THIS???

Dead silence... why are you afraid to answer, David?

> > > Plus....
> > >
> > > The WCR page that Ben mentioned the other day (Page 180) is,
> >
> > Tut tut tut, David... YOU JUST GOT THROUGH LYING ABOUT HOW I ACT AS IF THE PAGES REFERENCED IN THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT DON'T EXIST.
> >
> > Now you acknowledge my response ON THAT VERY ISSUE!
> >
>
> Re: pg. 180, not pages 560-562, moron. Try again, prick.

What did I *SAY* about page 180?

What does it *SAY* on page 180?

And, of course, the fact that you're getting all upset shows that you know you've been caught in a lie again.

> > You owe me an apology for your blatant misrepresentation of what I've stated.
> >
>
> Fat chance, kook.

Of course... I never thought that you were an honest man.

> > > indeed, also a good page for proving my point about how the WC didn't view Oswald's "Positive" paraffin results on his hands as any kind of PROOF that he had fired a gun. So we can add that page (180) to Pages 560-562 as well.
> >
> > Yep... you've been schooled.
> >
> > What you cannot do is provide the citation to Guinn's test results that the Warren Commission provided.

More crickets...

> > They didn't provide them.
> >
> > They buried them.
> >
> > For a very good reason.
> >
> > THEY KNEW THAT THIS MEANT THAT THE NAA TEST DEMONSTRATED THAT OSWALD HAD NOT FIRED A RIFLE.

Clearly you have nothing to say...

> > > Thanks for pointing that out, Ben. Because it's another very good example illustrating the Warren Commission's complete honesty and non-biased attitude when discussing the results of Lee Harvey Oswald's paraffin tests....
> >
> > You're a liar, David.
> >
> > I've previously gone over their "complete honesty and non-biased attitude" - and you ran like a dog.
> >
> > YOU RAN LIKE A DOG!!!
> >
> > Just as you'll run again from explaining why the Warren Commission buried Guinn's **NAA** test results.
> >
> > RUN DAVID, RUN!
> > SEE DAVID RUN!
> > WHAT A COWARD DAVID IS!

And indeed, as predicted, David ran again...



> > > WCR, p.180:
> > > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0102b.htm