David Von Pein Runs YET AGAIN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

Ben Holmes:
>> The Warren Commission certainly thought this [the NAA/Barium/Antimony tests on Oswald's cheek cast] was negative - can you name *ANY* evidence against Oswald that was not used?
>>...
>> You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.
>>
>> Lied, didn't you David?


David Von Pein:

> How can it be anything BUT "positive", Ben? The only two things the NAA test tests for are Barium & Antimony, and Oswald's cheek had traces of BOTH of those elements on the NAA cheek cast. So how can that type of result be deemed "NEGATIVE"? How?

David ABSOLUTELY RAN from the question I asked him... he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly acknowledge that there was *NO* evidence against Oswald that was not used in this case.

Nor will David tell anyone what a "control" is - because it would become clear that Oswald's cheek cast was *NEGATIVE* with both paraffin and NAA. David is scientifically illiterate, but desperate to use science to support his faith.

David, in his omissions; is a liar.

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:21:57 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Ben Holmes:
> >> The Warren Commission certainly thought this [the NAA/Barium/Antimony tests on Oswald's cheek cast] was negative - can you name *ANY* evidence against Oswald that was not used?
> >>...
> >> You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.
> >>
> >> Lied, didn't you David?
>
>
> David Von Pein:
>
> > How can it be anything BUT "positive", Ben? The only two things the NAA test tests for are Barium & Antimony, and Oswald's cheek had traces of BOTH of those elements on the NAA cheek cast. So how can that type of result be deemed "NEGATIVE"? How?
>
> David ABSOLUTELY RAN from the question I asked him... he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly acknowledge that there was *NO* evidence against Oswald that was not used in this case.
>

Boy, what stupid reasoning. Particularly in light of what we find on pages 561 and 562 of the WCR, with those pages confirming that Oswald's POSITIVE results on the various paraffin casts (e.g., on his hands for PARAFFIN/NITRATES and on his hands and cheek on the NAA/BARIUM/ANTIMONY test) were NOT used "against" Oswald by the Warren Commission.

Ben just refuses to comprehend pages 561 and 562, I guess. ~shrug~

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0293a.htm

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 7:52:30 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:21:57 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Ben Holmes:
> > >> The Warren Commission certainly thought this [the NAA/Barium/Antimony tests on Oswald's cheek cast] was negative - can you name *ANY* evidence against Oswald that was not used?
> > >>...
> > >> You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.
> > >>
> > >> Lied, didn't you David?
> >
> >
> > David Von Pein:
> >
> > > How can it be anything BUT "positive", Ben? The only two things the NAA test tests for are Barium & Antimony, and Oswald's cheek had traces of BOTH of those elements on the NAA cheek cast. So how can that type of result be deemed "NEGATIVE"? How?
> >
> > David ABSOLUTELY RAN from the question I asked him... he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly acknowledge that there was *NO* evidence against Oswald that was not used in this case.
> >
>
> Boy, what stupid reasoning.

How is it "stupid reasoning" to point out that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly acknowledge that there was *NO* evidence that would help their case that the Warren Commission failed to use?

Why is it "stupid reasoning" to point out your extreme cowardice in refusing to answer perfectly reasonable evidence based questions?

> Particularly in light of what we find on pages 561 and 562 of the WCR, with those pages confirming that Oswald's POSITIVE results on the various paraffin casts (e.g., on his hands for PARAFFIN/NITRATES and on his hands and cheek on the NAA/BARIUM/ANTIMONY test) were NOT used "against" Oswald by the Warren Commission.

You can't use what exonerates Oswald... that's simply common sense.

You *should* have cited page 180. (But I never thought you to be a good researcher...) But interestingly, even though you KNOW FOR A FACT that the NAA is far more reliable & credible - you have not even a single word to explain why the Warren Commission buried the relevant NAA tests that showed just how accurate it was in comparison to the paraffin tests...

Indeed, as I've stated many times (and you've BLATANTLY lied about) Guinn's tests CONTRADICT the paraffin tests.

Indeed, I don't recall that you've *EVER* acknowledged the reliability and accuracy of the NAA test.

Nor have you ever answered my question... If I shot you in the head, would you want the police to use the paraffin test or the NAA test to make their case against me?

> Ben just refuses to comprehend pages 561 and 562, I guess. ~shrug~
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0293a.htm

David is just having too much fun molesting neighborhood children, I guess. ~shrug~

> > Nor will David tell anyone what a "control" is - because it would become clear that Oswald's cheek cast was *NEGATIVE* with both paraffin and NAA. David is scientifically illiterate, but desperate to use science to support his faith.

Notice again, David's ABJECT FEAR of any explanation of the NAA results - which absolutely *MUST* start with the explanation of what a 'control' is.

Just his scientific illiteracy, no doubt. I've not even touched on more complex issues, such as the PERCENTAGES of Barium & Antimony...

It's clear that David isn't interested in the truth... he only wants what will support his faith.

> > David, in his omissions; is a liar.

In his assertions, as well...

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 11:12:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 7:52:30 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:21:57 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Ben Holmes:
> > > >> The Warren Commission certainly thought this [the NAA/Barium/Antimony tests on Oswald's cheek cast] was negative - can you name *ANY* evidence against Oswald that was not used?
> > > >>...
> > > >> You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.
> > > >>
> > > >> Lied, didn't you David?
> > >
> > >
> > > David Von Pein:
> > >
> > > > How can it be anything BUT "positive", Ben? The only two things the NAA test tests for are Barium & Antimony, and Oswald's cheek had traces of BOTH of those elements on the NAA cheek cast. So how can that type of result be deemed "NEGATIVE"? How?
> > >
> > > David ABSOLUTELY RAN from the question I asked him... he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly acknowledge that there was *NO* evidence against Oswald that was not used in this case.
> > >
> >
> > Boy, what stupid reasoning.
>
> How is it "stupid reasoning" to point out that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly acknowledge that there was *NO* evidence that would help their case that the Warren Commission failed to use?
>
> Why is it "stupid reasoning" to point out your extreme cowardice in refusing to answer perfectly reasonable evidence based questions?
>
>
> > Particularly in light of what we find on pages 561 and 562 of the WCR, with those pages confirming that Oswald's POSITIVE results on the various paraffin casts (e.g., on his hands for PARAFFIN/NITRATES and on his hands and cheek on the NAA/BARIUM/ANTIMONY test) were NOT used "against" Oswald by the Warren Commission.
>
> You can't use what exonerates Oswald... that's simply common sense.
>

Only an idiot could possibly think the NAA tests on Oswald's cheek and hands "exonerate" Lee H. Oswald.

Ben Holmes, ladies and gentlemen, *IS* that idiot.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 12:30:47 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 11:12:06 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 7:52:30 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 10:21:57 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Ben Holmes:
> > > > >> The Warren Commission certainly thought this [the NAA/Barium/Antimony tests on Oswald's cheek cast] was negative - can you name *ANY* evidence against Oswald that was not used?
> > > > >>...
> > > > >> You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Lied, didn't you David?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David Von Pein:
> > > >
> > > > > How can it be anything BUT "positive", Ben? The only two things the NAA test tests for are Barium & Antimony, and Oswald's cheek had traces of BOTH of those elements on the NAA cheek cast. So how can that type of result be deemed "NEGATIVE"? How?
> > > >
> > > > David ABSOLUTELY RAN from the question I asked him... he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly acknowledge that there was *NO* evidence against Oswald that was not used in this case.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Boy, what stupid reasoning.
> >
> > How is it "stupid reasoning" to point out that you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to publicly acknowledge that there was *NO* evidence that would help their case that the Warren Commission failed to use?
> >
> > Why is it "stupid reasoning" to point out your extreme cowardice in refusing to answer perfectly reasonable evidence based questions?
> >
> >
> > > Particularly in light of what we find on pages 561 and 562 of the WCR, with those pages confirming that Oswald's POSITIVE results on the various paraffin casts (e.g., on his hands for PARAFFIN/NITRATES and on his hands and cheek on the NAA/BARIUM/ANTIMONY test) were NOT used "against" Oswald by the Warren Commission.
> >
> > You can't use what exonerates Oswald... that's simply common sense.
> >
>
> Only an idiot could possibly think the NAA tests on Oswald's cheek and hands "exonerate" Lee H. Oswald.
>
> Ben Holmes, ladies and gentlemen, *IS* that idiot.

Ad hominem is simply your admission that you've lost the debate.

You've REPEATEDLY refused to answer the question about what a "control" is, so you clearly know that the control used by the NAA testing refutes your claim.

You're DEATHLY afraid of the fact that the tests DID NOT show that Oswald fired a rifle... indeed, you continue to refuse to cite any expert that made that claim... (while refusing to publicly acknowledge the fact that you can't.)

It's interesting to note that David isn't honest enough to label the Warren Commission's NAA expert, John Gallagher, an "idiot" - though according to David's criteria, he certainly is:

Mr. REDLICH. Were you able to make determination as to whether the barium and antimony present on the inside cast was more than would be expected in the case of a person who had not fired a weapon or handled a fired weapon ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I found that there was more barium and antimony on the inside surface of the cast than you would find on the cheek of an individual who had recently washed his cheek. However, the significance of this antimony and barium on the inside of the cheek is not known.

John Gallagher was COMPLETELY UNWILLING to even state definitively that Oswald had FIRED a weapon, and certainly unwilling to attribute his findings on the cheek cast to the firing of a rifle. He was perfectly willing to have his findings show that Oswald had merely *HANDLED* a pistol, then wiped his cheek with his hand.

That makes him an "idiot" according to David.

But of course, the evidence never was of very much importance to believers... they have their faith - and *that* is more important than the evidence in this case.

Notice that once again, David ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to answer the question I've now raised twice before - If I shoot him in the head with my M16A2, would he prefer the police to use the paraffin test, or the NAA test when trying to convict me of the murder?

> > You *should* have cited page 180. (But I never thought you to be a good researcher...) But interestingly, even though you KNOW FOR A FACT that the NAA is far more reliable & credible - you have not even a single word to explain why the Warren Commission buried the relevant NAA tests that showed just how accurate it was in comparison to the paraffin tests...

Crickets...

> > Indeed, as I've stated many times (and you've BLATANTLY lied about) Guinn's tests CONTRADICT the paraffin tests.
> >
> > Indeed, I don't recall that you've *EVER* acknowledged the reliability and accuracy of the NAA test.

Sheer cowardice!

The truth isn't a concern to believers... only their faith.

> > Nor have you ever answered my question... If I shot you in the head, would you want the police to use the paraffin test or the NAA test to make their case against me?

Crickets...

> > > Ben just refuses to comprehend pages 561 and 562, I guess. ~shrug~
> > >
> > > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0293a.htm
> >
> > David is just having too much fun molesting neighborhood children, I guess. ~shrug~
> >
> > > > Nor will David tell anyone what a "control" is - because it would become clear that Oswald's cheek cast was *NEGATIVE* with both paraffin and NAA. David is scientifically illiterate, but desperate to use science to support his faith.
> >
> > Notice again, David's ABJECT FEAR of any explanation of the NAA results - which absolutely *MUST* start with the explanation of what a 'control' is.
> >
> > Just his scientific illiteracy, no doubt. I've not even touched on more complex issues, such as the PERCENTAGES of Barium & Antimony...
> >
> > It's clear that David isn't interested in the truth... he only wants what will support his faith.

Still showing his cowardice... David is ABJECTLY AFRAID of the scientific concept of controls - because he knows that it makes his claims meaningless.

> > > > David, in his omissions; is a liar.
> >
> > In his assertions, as well...

Not to mention his cowardice...