Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
David Von Pein's Hypocrisy & Ignorance...
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Feb 22, 2017, 9:28:20 AM2/22/17
to
David Von Pein:
>But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
So David knows that Killion's test meant ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL... had it been tested with the NAA - it would certainly have come up positive, and David knows this... and he's downright afraid of Guinn's test.
Lurkers - watch as the above statements *NEVER* appear on any of David Von Pein's websites.
>But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
So David knows that Killion's test meant ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL... had it been tested with the NAA - it would certainly have come up positive, and David knows this... and he's downright afraid of Guinn's test.
Lurkers - watch as the above statements *NEVER* appear on any of David Von Pein's websites.
David Von Pein
Feb 22, 2017, 9:56:34 AM2/22/17
to
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:28:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> David Von Pein:
> >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
>
> I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
>
> But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
>
> David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
>
> Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
Yes, that's correct. I've never denied that fact. But you're talking about two totally different tests. Different elements. Different results.
> David Von Pein:
> >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
>
> I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
>
> But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
>
> David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
>
> Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
And we KNOW from the Killion/FBI test and from 7 out of 8 nitrate tests done by Dr. Guinn that it's very likely a person will test NEGATIVE for nitrates on his face after firing a Carcano rifle like Oswald's.
CTers must *hate* the fact that 9 out of 10 paraffin tests showed up NEGATIVE on the cheeks of people who positively DID fire a Carcano rifle (including Lee Harvey Oswald).
Ben Holmes
Feb 22, 2017, 10:01:58 AM2/22/17
to
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:56:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:28:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > David Von Pein:
> > >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
> >
> > I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
> >
> > But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
> >
> > David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
> >
> > Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
>
> Yes, that's correct. I've never denied that fact. But you're talking about two totally different tests. Different elements. Different results.
I've just pointed out your INCREDIBLE HYPOCRISY - relying on a test YOU KNOW TO BE DEFECTIVE - and pointing out that your entire argument is just STUPID.
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:28:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > David Von Pein:
> > >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
> >
> > I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
> >
> > But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
> >
> > David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
> >
> > Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
>
> Yes, that's correct. I've never denied that fact. But you're talking about two totally different tests. Different elements. Different results.
Because you know - YOU KNOW - that had Killion's cast been subjected to the NAA - the results quite likely would have been different.
As Guinn demonstrated.
That means you're a liar.
> And we KNOW from the Killion/FBI test and from 7 out of 8 nitrate tests done by Dr. Guinn that it's very likely a person will test NEGATIVE for nitrates on his face after firing a Carcano rifle like Oswald's.
ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!!!
> CTers must *hate* the fact that 9 out of 10 paraffin tests showed up NEGATIVE on the cheeks of people who positively DID fire a Carcano rifle (including Lee Harvey Oswald).
Why does the REAL results obtained by Guinn frighten you into such amazing lies?
David Von Pein
Feb 22, 2017, 10:19:42 AM2/22/17
to
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:01:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:56:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:28:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > David Von Pein:
> > > >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
> > >
> > > I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
> > >
> > > But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
> > >
> > > David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
> > >
> > > Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
> >
> > Yes, that's correct. I've never denied that fact. But you're talking about two totally different tests. Different elements. Different results.
>
>
> I've just pointed out your INCREDIBLE HYPOCRISY - relying on a test YOU KNOW TO BE DEFECTIVE - and pointing out that your entire argument is just STUPID.
>
> Because you know - YOU KNOW - that had Killion's cast been subjected to the NAA - the results quite likely would have been different.
>
Oh, you mean you think Killion's cast would have been the same as Oswald's cheek cast --- POSITIVE for the presence of BOTH elements being tested for via Neutron Activation Analysis? Is that what you mean? (Yeah, that positive result on Killion would sure put DVP in his place, wouldn't it?) ~great big eyeroll~
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:56:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:28:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > David Von Pein:
> > > >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
> > >
> > > I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
> > >
> > > But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
> > >
> > > David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
> > >
> > > Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
> >
> > Yes, that's correct. I've never denied that fact. But you're talking about two totally different tests. Different elements. Different results.
>
>
> I've just pointed out your INCREDIBLE HYPOCRISY - relying on a test YOU KNOW TO BE DEFECTIVE - and pointing out that your entire argument is just STUPID.
>
> Because you know - YOU KNOW - that had Killion's cast been subjected to the NAA - the results quite likely would have been different.
>
David Von Pein
Feb 22, 2017, 10:32:01 AM2/22/17
to
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:01:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:56:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:28:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > David Von Pein:
> > > >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
> > >
> > > I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
> > >
> > > But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
> > >
> > > David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
> > >
> > > Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
> >
> > Yes, that's correct. I've never denied that fact. But you're talking about two totally different tests. Different elements. Different results.
>
>
> I've just pointed out your INCREDIBLE HYPOCRISY - relying on a test YOU KNOW TO BE DEFECTIVE - and pointing out that your entire argument is just STUPID.
>
> Because you know - YOU KNOW - that had Killion's cast been subjected to the NAA - the results quite likely would have been different.
>
> As Guinn demonstrated.
>
> That means you're a liar.
>
>
> > And we KNOW from the Killion/FBI test and from 7 out of 8 nitrate tests done by Dr. Guinn that it's very likely a person will test NEGATIVE for nitrates on his face after firing a Carcano rifle like Oswald's.
>
>
> MY GOD WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE!!!
>
> ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!!!
>
So, you think Dr. Guinn was a liar, eh? That's interesting, since you love his NAA test results, so he must not be a liar on those tests.
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:56:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:28:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > David Von Pein:
> > > >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
> > >
> > > I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
> > >
> > > But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
> > >
> > > David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
> > >
> > > Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
> >
> > Yes, that's correct. I've never denied that fact. But you're talking about two totally different tests. Different elements. Different results.
>
>
> I've just pointed out your INCREDIBLE HYPOCRISY - relying on a test YOU KNOW TO BE DEFECTIVE - and pointing out that your entire argument is just STUPID.
>
> Because you know - YOU KNOW - that had Killion's cast been subjected to the NAA - the results quite likely would have been different.
>
> As Guinn demonstrated.
>
> That means you're a liar.
>
>
> > And we KNOW from the Killion/FBI test and from 7 out of 8 nitrate tests done by Dr. Guinn that it's very likely a person will test NEGATIVE for nitrates on his face after firing a Carcano rifle like Oswald's.
>
>
> MY GOD WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE!!!
>
> ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!!!
>
And, no, I am NOT "relying" on ANY of these NAA/Paraffin results to decide whether LHO fired a gun or a revolver or not. I'm merely pointing out the overwhelmingly NEGATIVE test results that CTers must hate re: the NITRATE cheek tests. But I'll repeat the following yet again (in case Holmes wants to reprise the argument that I'm RELYING on these wholly unreliable Paraffin/NAA tests)....
"The main point is --- Neither test (paraffin or NAA) proves Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun on 11/22/63. And, by the same token, neither test proves he DID fire a gun." -- DVP; September 2015
Ben Holmes
Feb 22, 2017, 11:36:44 AM2/22/17
to
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 7:19:42 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:01:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:56:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:28:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > David Von Pein:
> > > > >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
> > > >
> > > > I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
> > > >
> > > > But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
> > > >
> > > > David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
> > > >
> > > > Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
> > >
> > > Yes, that's correct. I've never denied that fact. But you're talking about two totally different tests. Different elements. Different results.
> >
> >
> > I've just pointed out your INCREDIBLE HYPOCRISY - relying on a test YOU KNOW TO BE DEFECTIVE - and pointing out that your entire argument is just STUPID.
> >
> > Because you know - YOU KNOW - that had Killion's cast been subjected to the NAA - the results quite likely would have been different.
> >
>
> Oh, you mean you think Killion's cast would have been the same as Oswald's cheek cast --- POSITIVE for the presence of BOTH elements being tested for via Neutron Activation Analysis? Is that what you mean? (Yeah, that positive result on Killion would sure put DVP in his place, wouldn't it?) ~great big eyeroll~
The fact that you're intentionally lying is what the point is.
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:01:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:56:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:28:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > David Von Pein:
> > > > >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
> > > >
> > > > I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
> > > >
> > > > But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
> > > >
> > > > David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
> > > >
> > > > Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
> > >
> > > Yes, that's correct. I've never denied that fact. But you're talking about two totally different tests. Different elements. Different results.
> >
> >
> > I've just pointed out your INCREDIBLE HYPOCRISY - relying on a test YOU KNOW TO BE DEFECTIVE - and pointing out that your entire argument is just STUPID.
> >
> > Because you know - YOU KNOW - that had Killion's cast been subjected to the NAA - the results quite likely would have been different.
> >
>
> Oh, you mean you think Killion's cast would have been the same as Oswald's cheek cast --- POSITIVE for the presence of BOTH elements being tested for via Neutron Activation Analysis? Is that what you mean? (Yeah, that positive result on Killion would sure put DVP in his place, wouldn't it?) ~great big eyeroll~
You INTENTIONALLY refuse to debate the NAA - you've CONSISTENTLY refused to publicly admit that it's far more accurate & credible than the paraffin test.
You denigrate the paraffin tests - ONLY UNTIL YOU WANT TO USE IT FOR YOUR OWN PURPOSES...
And you claim you're honest???
How silly!
> > As Guinn demonstrated.
> >
> > That means you're a liar.
> >
> >
> > > And we KNOW from the Killion/FBI test and from 7 out of 8 nitrate tests done by Dr. Guinn that it's very likely a person will test NEGATIVE for nitrates on his face after firing a Carcano rifle like Oswald's.
> >
> >
> > MY GOD WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE!!!
> >
> > ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!!!
And, of course; still no cites for his lie. (He can't - it's a lie!)
David Von Pein
Feb 22, 2017, 11:47:25 AM2/22/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 22, 2017, 3:27:16 PM2/22/17
to
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 7:32:01 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:01:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:56:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:28:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > David Von Pein:
> > > > >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
> > > >
> > > > I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
> > > >
> > > > But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
> > > >
> > > > David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
> > > >
> > > > Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
> > >
> > > Yes, that's correct. I've never denied that fact. But you're talking about two totally different tests. Different elements. Different results.
> >
> >
> > I've just pointed out your INCREDIBLE HYPOCRISY - relying on a test YOU KNOW TO BE DEFECTIVE - and pointing out that your entire argument is just STUPID.
> >
> > Because you know - YOU KNOW - that had Killion's cast been subjected to the NAA - the results quite likely would have been different.
> >
> > As Guinn demonstrated.
> >
> > That means you're a liar.
> >
> >
> > > And we KNOW from the Killion/FBI test and from 7 out of 8 nitrate tests done by Dr. Guinn that it's very likely a person will test NEGATIVE for nitrates on his face after firing a Carcano rifle like Oswald's.
> >
> >
> > MY GOD WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE!!!
> >
> > ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!!!
> >
>
> So, you think Dr. Guinn was a liar, eh?
Nope... that's not who I was referring to. (although Guinn was also caught lying...)
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 10:01:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6:56:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 9:28:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > David Von Pein:
> > > > >But Holmes knew, of course (even in June of 2002), that FBI agent Charles Killion had test-fired Oswald's rifle and the paraffin results on Killion's HANDS and CHEEK were both NEGATIVE. But Holmes will continue to pretend that the "cheek cast" results on Lee Oswald are some kind of evidence of conspiracy---which they are not (and neither are the NAA results).
> > > >
> > > > I'm truly amused that believers will slam the paraffin test incessantly until the very moment they need it, THEN THEY'LL CITE THE PARAFFIN TEST AS IF IT'S A TRULY RELIABLE AND CREDIBLE TEST.
> > > >
> > > > But David Von Pein *KNOWS* that Guinn did tests in which the subjects had "heavy deposits" after firing a Mannlicher Carcano. He knows that Guinn used the far more accurate, and FAR MORE CREDIBLE NAA tests.
> > > >
> > > > David Von Pein whines that the NAA test was POSITIVE on the cheek cast - and if the mere presence of barium & antimony is all you are looking at, then David has proven himself STUPID!!!
> > > >
> > > > Because it's an historical FACT that the very same cheek cast that David whines was positive - CAME UP NEGATIVE ON THE PARAFFIN TEST!!!
> > >
> > > Yes, that's correct. I've never denied that fact. But you're talking about two totally different tests. Different elements. Different results.
> >
> >
> > I've just pointed out your INCREDIBLE HYPOCRISY - relying on a test YOU KNOW TO BE DEFECTIVE - and pointing out that your entire argument is just STUPID.
> >
> > Because you know - YOU KNOW - that had Killion's cast been subjected to the NAA - the results quite likely would have been different.
> >
> > As Guinn demonstrated.
> >
> > That means you're a liar.
> >
> >
> > > And we KNOW from the Killion/FBI test and from 7 out of 8 nitrate tests done by Dr. Guinn that it's very likely a person will test NEGATIVE for nitrates on his face after firing a Carcano rifle like Oswald's.
> >
> >
> > MY GOD WHAT A LIAR YOU ARE!!!
> >
> > ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING!!!
> >
>
> So, you think Dr. Guinn was a liar, eh?
I'M LABELING **YOU** A LIAR FOR YOUR LIE ABOUT GUINN'S RESULTS WHEN HE HAD PEOPLE FIRE A MANNLICHER CARCANO.
You refuse to HONESTLY state what he said the results were.
Your lying is simply BREATHTAKING!
> That's interesting, since you love his NAA test results, so he must not be a liar on those tests.
But you can't... you lied about 'em.
> And, no, I am NOT "relying" on ANY of these NAA/Paraffin results to decide whether LHO fired a gun or a revolver or not.
> I'm merely pointing out the overwhelmingly NEGATIVE test results that CTers must hate re: the NITRATE cheek tests.
> But I'll repeat the following yet again (in case Holmes wants to reprise the argument that I'm RELYING on these wholly unreliable Paraffin/NAA tests)....
>
> "The main point is --- Neither test (paraffin or NAA) proves Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun on 11/22/63. And, by the same token, neither test proves he DID fire a gun." -- DVP; September 2015
You're a liar, aren't you David?
> > > CTers must *hate* the fact that 9 out of 10 paraffin tests showed up NEGATIVE on the cheeks of people who positively DID fire a Carcano rifle (including Lee Harvey Oswald).
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, David Von Pein.
> >
> > Why does the REAL results obtained by Guinn frighten you into such amazing lies?
> >
> > > > So David knows that Killion's test meant ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL... had it been tested with the NAA - it would certainly have come up positive, and David knows this... and he's downright afraid of Guinn's test.
> > > >
> > > > Lurkers - watch as the above statements *NEVER* appear on any of David Von Pein's websites.
David *KNOWS* he's been caught lying, and has no-where to go.
Ben Holmes
Feb 22, 2017, 3:30:35 PM2/22/17
to
If you cannot cite the evidence that supports your claim - THEN *YOU* ARE A LIAR... I don't care where *you* got the lie from.
Now cite for Guinn's testing of people who fired a Mannlicher Carcano - or CONTINUE to show what a dishonest person you are.
CITE FOR IT, OR RETRACT IT PUBLICLY...
Bud
Feb 22, 2017, 3:40:31 PM2/22/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 22, 2017, 3:44:25 PM2/22/17
to
If you can't follow the debate, "Bud" - then you shouldn't publicly show your inability to do so.
Bud
Feb 22, 2017, 3:49:18 PM2/22/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 22, 2017, 7:23:41 PM2/22/17
to
Bud
Feb 22, 2017, 7:54:40 PM2/22/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 22, 2017, 9:08:58 PM2/22/17
to
Why not QUOTE David doing this...
David Von Pein
Feb 23, 2017, 4:27:23 AM2/23/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 23, 2017, 9:29:28 AM2/23/17
to
They just HATE it.
It's never "stupid" to ask someone to support what they've claimed.
David knows good and well that he never made any such statement, and CANNOT be quoted by "Bud" on the issue - but rather than tell "Bud" that, or even try to help "Bud" by twisting something ... he simply jumps to the admission that he can't debate.
David Von Pein
Feb 23, 2017, 9:56:11 AM2/23/17
to
As usual, Ben has totally misinterpreted what Bud meant when he (Bud) said this....
"I'm talking to the hypocrite who told DVP he was responsible for the content he posts regardless of where he gets it from."
Ben Holmes
Feb 23, 2017, 10:12:29 AM2/23/17
to
> As usual, Ben has totally misinterpreted what Bud meant when he (Bud) said this....
>
> "I'm talking to the hypocrite who told DVP he was responsible for the content he posts regardless of where he gets it from."
"Weird. You blame BT George for incomplete arguments of Buglisoi you have been posting here. Why aren`t you responsible?"
> Think it through, Ben. Maybe then it will dawn on you what Bud was talking about above....and why Bud used the word "hypocrite".
Don't need to "think it through" - "Bud" was quite explicit. It was material from "BT George" that was the topic.
By the way, I just posted a detailed breakdown of your lies about Guinn's tests...
I really don't expect you to answer it, since it's blazingly clear that you simply lied.
Bud
Feb 23, 2017, 11:40:39 AM2/23/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 23, 2017, 11:41:48 AM2/23/17
to
Bud
Feb 23, 2017, 11:50:43 AM2/23/17
to
"I could care *less* where you get your information...
If you cannot cite the evidence that supports your claim - THEN *YOU* ARE A LIAR... I don't care where *you* got the lie from."
David Von Pein
Feb 23, 2017, 12:01:52 PM2/23/17
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 23, 2017, 1:20:26 PM2/23/17
to
Or admit that you lied.
Ben Holmes
Feb 23, 2017, 1:21:34 PM2/23/17
to
What I want from you is a public retraction of your claim about Guinn's tests, and a removal from your website of that lie.
David Von Pein
Feb 23, 2017, 1:48:45 PM2/23/17
to
The NAA tests that were done did, indeed, always test POSITIVE on people who had fired a rifle, which is perfectly consistent with Oswald's NAA cheek test--it was positive too, no matter what crazy spin Holmes wants to put on that test (as he continues to insist that LHO's NAA cheek test was "negative"). So there is nothing inconsistent at all between Guinn's NAA tests and the FBI's NAA test from '64 on LHO's cheek cast.
Are you suggesting, Ben, that Dr. Guinn's NAA tests actually tested for NITRATES as well as barium and antimony? If that's what you are asserting, I believe you are very much mistaken. Because the NAA tests do NOT test for "nitrates", only for barium and antimony.
Ben Holmes
Feb 23, 2017, 2:13:20 PM2/23/17
to
On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:48:45 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 1:21:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 9:01:52 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein
> On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 1:21:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 9:01:52 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein
> > What I want from you is a public retraction of your claim about Guinn's tests, and a removal from your website of that lie.
> >
>
> I "lied" about nothing and you know it.
You quoted on your own website the proof that you lied.
> >
>
> I "lied" about nothing and you know it.
What did GUINN HIMSELF state about his testing relating the NAA to the paraffin tests?
And what did *YOU* claim?
You won't, and cannot; answer those two questions honestly.
0 new messages