Why Is David Von Pein So Afraid To Debate The NAA Test?

[Ben Holmes]

Just like the Warren Commission, the far more accurate and credible NAA tests absolutely frightens David Von Pein.

David runs away every time the topic comes up.

Time and time again, I've challenged him to explain what a scientific "control" test is, and what it does... and David has run away each and EVERY time!

If Oswald alone shot JFK, why the fear?

[David Von Pein]

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.
Mr. REDLICH. Is that because the outside surface acts as a sort of control on the basis of which you can make a comparison?
Mr. GALLAGHER. The outside surface of the cheek was run as a control for this particular specimen.
Mr. REDLICH. And therefore the presence of a lesser amount of barium and a slightly larger amount of antimony on the inside surface was one of the reasons why you could not make a determination as to the significance of the barium and antimony on the inside surface, is that correct?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. REDLICH. Did the fact that Oswald was believed to have fired a revolver prior to the time the paraffin casts were made have an effect on your ability to determine the significance of the barium and antimony on the inside of the cheek cast ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. The subsequent repeated firing of the revolver definitely overshadowed the results. That is why it was reported that no significance could be attached to the residues found on the cast other than the conclusion than the barium and antimony in these residues are present in amounts greater than found on the hands of a normal individual who had not recently fired or handled a fired weapon.
Mr. REDLICH. In other words, given the known fact, or the assumed fact, that the suspect had fired a revolver repeatedly, the barium and antimony could have found their way to the suspect's cheek as a result of the repeated firing of that revolver, and therefore precluded you from making any determination as to whether the elements barium and antimony were placed on the cheek as the result of the firing of the rifle. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, there is no way to eliminate the fact that the subject may have wiped a contaminated hand across his cheek subsequent to the firing of the revolver, thus contaminating his cheek with barium and antimony.

[End WC Quotes.]

As I've told Holmes numerous times already (but he insists on dredging up this topic over and over again) --- In essence, John Gallagher (via the above testimony) and the WC (on page 562 of their report) decided that Oswald's NAA casts were worthless in trying to determine whether or not LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63 --- even though Gallagher and the WC knew that Oswald DID have "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" (WCR, p.562).

But even WITH the above determination, the WC still would not say that it was enough to indicate Oswald definitely did fire a weapon on Nov. 22.

Why won't Ben give the WC some credit for honesty when it's warranted?

Instead, Ben thinks the WC should have added the following statement to page 562....

THE SUBSEQUENT TESTS CONDUCTED BY DR. VINCENT P. GUINN CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE FIRED A RIFLE ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.

But, as Ben has to know, there are a variety of reasons why the above silly declaration should not be applied to the NAA evidence connected with Lee Oswald and the JFK case. Not the least of which is the fact that we know that Oswald's paraffin casts were WASHED before being subjected to the NAA analysis---undoubtedly resulting in some of the elements being washed away before the test. (Given these conditions, why the NAA test was even done on Oswald's WASHED casts is rather ridiculous, because such a test obviously will not be as accurate as a test done on an UNWASHED cast.)

Plus: nobody can know for certain (not Ben Holmes or anybody else on the planet) if Oswald wiped or washed his face between the time of the assassination and the time his paraffin casts were created. Such wiping (or washing) of the face could have very well removed significant amounts of barium and antimony from Oswald's cheek following the shooting. And nobody can possibly prove such "wiping" or "washing" of Oswald's cheek did NOT take place on 11/22/63. (Just wiping his face with his shirt sleeve would no doubt wipe away some of the elements that HAD been present on his cheek.)

That UNKNOWN "wiping" or "washing" factor, all by itself, renders this statement uttered by Ben Holmes eight years ago completely useless, worthless, and just flat-out wrong:

"The cheek cast of LHO -- physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that day." -- Ben Holmes; June 12, 2009

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-583.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 7:53:55 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> 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.

In other words, *not* a "positive" test result.

> Mr. REDLICH. Is that because the outside surface acts as a sort of control on the basis of which you can make a comparison?
> Mr. GALLAGHER. The outside surface of the cheek was run as a control for this particular specimen.
> Mr. REDLICH. And therefore the presence of a lesser amount of barium and a slightly larger amount of antimony on the inside surface was one of the reasons why you could not make a determination as to the significance of the barium and antimony on the inside surface, is that correct?
> Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.

In other words, a *NEGATIVE* test result.

> Mr. REDLICH. Did the fact that Oswald was believed to have fired a revolver prior to the time the paraffin casts were made have an effect on your ability to determine the significance of the barium and antimony on the inside of the cheek cast ?
> Mr. GALLAGHER. The subsequent repeated firing of the revolver definitely overshadowed the results. That is why it was reported that no significance could be attached to the residues found on the cast other than the conclusion than the barium and antimony in these residues are present in amounts greater than found on the hands of a normal individual who had not recently fired or handled a fired weapon.
> Mr. REDLICH. In other words, given the known fact, or the assumed fact, that the suspect had fired a revolver repeatedly, the barium and antimony could have found their way to the suspect's cheek as a result of the repeated firing of that revolver, and therefore precluded you from making any determination as to whether the elements barium and antimony were placed on the cheek as the result of the firing of the rifle. Is that a correct statement?

In other words, given this speculation, *that* speculation might possibly be speculated... right?

> Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, there is no way to eliminate the fact that the subject may have wiped a contaminated hand across his cheek subsequent to the firing of the revolver, thus contaminating his cheek with barium and antimony.

Which is different, and quite a bit more credible, than that nonsensical theory put forth by believers that Oswald *WASHED HIS FACE*.

> [End WC Quotes.]
>
> As I've told Holmes numerous times already (but he insists on dredging up this topic over and over again)

You've refused, over and over again, to discuss the scientific 'control' - and what it's used for.

Just as you did here.

> --- In essence, John Gallagher (via the above testimony) and the WC (on page 562 of their report) decided that Oswald's NAA casts were worthless in trying to determine whether or not LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63 --- even though Gallagher and the WC knew that Oswald DID have "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" (WCR, p.562).

Tut tut tut... so did the "control" surface... WHICH MEANS THAT THE PARAFFIN CAST WAS OUT SHOOTING THAT DAY!!!

What weapon did the paraffin cast shoot? Pistol or rifle? And if it was a pistol, was it an automatic or a revolver?

> But even WITH the above determination, the WC still would not say that it was enough to indicate Oswald definitely did fire a weapon on Nov. 22.

Indeed, they had FAR MORE scientific evidence that the *PARAFFIN* had shot a weapon.

> Why won't Ben give the WC some credit for honesty when it's warranted?

Because, as I've already proven time and time again, the Warren Commission lied.

The fact that *YOU* refuse to defend them against these proven lies shows that *YOU* know you've lost the debate.

> Instead, Ben thinks the WC should have added the following statement to page 562....
>
> THE SUBSEQUENT TESTS CONDUCTED BY DR. VINCENT P. GUINN CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT LEE HARVEY OSWALD COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE FIRED A RIFLE ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.

Actually, that would have been honest.

Which is, no doubt, why you continue to refuse to discuss 'control' tests, and what they do scientifically.


I know you won't answer, David - but what did Guinn *PROVE* happens in the NAA test results when someone has fired a Mannlicher Carcano?


The fact that you'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to answer this, simply goes to show your terror and cowardice...

> But, as Ben has to know, there are a variety of reasons why the above silly declaration should not be applied to the NAA evidence connected with Lee Oswald and the JFK case.

Nope... you're lying again, David.

> Not the least of which is the fact that we know that Oswald's paraffin casts were WASHED before being subjected to the NAA analysis

Absolutely *MEANINGLESS* with regards to the NAA results... and you know this.

This is why you refuse to discuss the *AMOUNTS* of barium & antimony found.

Quite the coward, aren't you David?

>---undoubtedly resulting in some of the elements being washed away before the test. (Given these conditions, why the NAA test was even done on Oswald's WASHED casts is rather ridiculous, because such a test obviously will not be as accurate as a test done on an UNWASHED cast.)

It COULD NOT POSSIBLY have given the results it did... and you know this.


> Plus: nobody can know for certain (not Ben Holmes or anybody else on the planet) if Oswald wiped or washed his face...

ROTFLMAO!!!

I knew it!!! WHAT A MORON...

You can't defend this ridiculous assertion, and you know it.

Wanna try????

> between the time of the assassination and the time his paraffin casts were created. Such wiping (or washing) of the face could have very well removed significant amounts of barium and antimony from Oswald's cheek following the shooting.

Nonsense.

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!!

Was he washing his face with his forearms?

> And nobody can possibly prove such "wiping" or "washing" of Oswald's cheek did NOT take place on 11/22/63. (Just wiping his face with his shirt sleeve would no doubt wipe away some of the elements that HAD been present on his cheek.

Again, nonsense.

> That UNKNOWN "wiping" or "washing" factor, all by itself, renders this statement uttered by Ben Holmes eight years ago completely useless, worthless, and just flat-out wrong:
>
> "The cheek cast of LHO -- physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that day." -- Ben Holmes; June 12, 2009

Still a coward, eh David?

Time to run away now, David... be a good boy and turn tail...

[David Von Pein]

Ben,

What makes you think Oswald would HAVE to wash away *100%* of the barium & antimony off of his FACE or his HANDS?

After all, we know that the casts WERE washed after the nitrate tests and--guess what?--there was STILL some barium & antimony left on the WASHED casts.

So it's ludicrous for Ben to laugh at the notion that Oswald could have washed his face and hands and yet not have washed them GOOD ENOUGH to eliminate ALL of the barium and antimony on his cheek and hands.

Do you KNOW how thoroughly LHO usually washed his face and hands on any given day? Of course you don't. Nor do I. Hence, Oswald could very easily have used the bathroom in the Texas Theater to wash his face and hands, resulting in a lower level of barium and antimony being present on those areas of his body.

And no reasonable person can possibly say the above scenario is a "ridiculous assertion" (as Holmes just did). Because it's a scenario that makes perfect sense--especially if Oswald was aware of the tests that the police might conduct on him should he be arrested that day.

In the event that such an "awareness" of potential paraffin tests did exist in the mind of Lee Harvey Oswald on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 (which we can never know for sure, of course), it would make perfect sense for Oswald to want to slip into the restroom while he was in the Texas Theater in order to potentially wash off some of the evidence that might lead the authorities to thinking he shot some people with guns that day.

[Ben Holmes]

David once again snips ALL the previous post, including all the questions he refuses to answer or address.

WHAT A COWARD!!!

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 9:26:18 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> Ben,
>
> What makes you think Oswald would HAVE to wash away *100%* of the barium & antimony off of his FACE or his HANDS?

Nope ... never said that.

Never implied it either.

Either be accurate with what you assert I'm saying, or be prepared to face the same tactics.

This is the only warning you'll get.

> After all, we know that the casts WERE washed after the nitrate tests and--guess what?--there was STILL some barium & antimony left on the WASHED casts.

Nope... you're lying again.

> So it's ludicrous for Ben to laugh at the notion that Oswald could have washed his face and hands and yet not have washed them GOOD ENOUGH to eliminate ALL of the barium and antimony on his cheek and hands.

It's ludicrous that you've descended to fighting strawmen.

You're lying again, David.

Indeed, *YOU* are the one arguing that Oswald washed his hands & face.

*I'VE NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM*... there's simply no evidence for it.

> Do you KNOW how thoroughly LHO usually washed his face and hands on any given day? Of course you don't. Nor do I. Hence, Oswald could very easily have used the bathroom in the Texas Theater to wash his face and hands, resulting in a lower level of barium and antimony being present on those areas of his body.

You're lying again, David.

> And no reasonable person can possibly say the above scenario is a "ridiculous assertion" (as Holmes just did). Because it's a scenario that makes perfect sense--especially if Oswald was aware of the tests that the police might conduct on him should he be arrested that day.

You're lying again, David.

Only a *MORON* thinks that Oswald washed his face, YET HAD MORE BARIUM & ANTIMONY ON HIS HANDS THAN ON HIS CHEEKS.

You a moron, David?

Explain it.

> In the event that such an "awareness" of potential paraffin tests did exist in the mind of Lee Harvey Oswald on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 (which we can never know for sure, of course), it would make perfect sense for Oswald to want to slip into the restroom while he was in the Texas Theater in order to potentially wash off some of the evidence that might lead the authorities to thinking he shot some people with guns that day.

Absolutely ZERO evidence of any such thing happening.

And even had he washed IN FRONT OF A CAMERA - it wouldn't explain why his hands were positive, AND HIS CHEEKS HAD VIRTUALLY NO BARIUM & ANTIMONY ... particularly after the control is taken into effect.

Something that David CONTINUES to show his cowardice over...

Why are you such a coward, David?

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Only a *MORON* thinks that Oswald washed his face, YET HAD MORE BARIUM & ANTIMONY ON HIS HANDS THAN ON HIS CHEEKS.

You a moron, David?

Explain it.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure. That one's easy. It's something I have already explained in a past post too, which you apparently ignored....

"Oswald could have washed his face and hands in the restroom while he was in the Texas Theater. And then he could have re-acquired deposits of gunpowder residue (nitrates on his hands and small amounts of barium and antimony on his face [and hands]) shortly thereafter when he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police in the theater.

Another conceivable possibility is that Oswald wiped his face with his shirt sleeve (or jacket sleeve) at some point in time between JFK's assassination and the time when Oswald was given the paraffin test at Dallas City Hall several hours later.

The above scenarios are, indeed, just speculation and guesswork on my part, and they should be properly labeled as such. But they seem to me to be somewhat reasonable pieces of speculation and are certainly within the realm of possibility for Oswald to have accomplished during the 80 minutes between President Kennedy's assassination and Oswald's capture in the Texas Theater." -- DVP; September 23, 2015

And given the fact we KNOW that Oswald handled his recently-fired revolver when he was struggling with the police officers in the Texas Theater, it makes perfect (logical) sense that Oswald could conceivably have had MORE barium and antimony deposits on his HANDS than on his face (via the scenario which has LHO washing his hands and face in the restroom of the theater BEFORE he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police). Sounds like a perfect "Barium & Antimony" fit to me.

Can I prove such a face-washing scenario took place on 11/22/63? Of course I can't. As I said in my 2015 post, it's purely guesswork on my part. But it's a scenario that helps to reasonably explain the "NAA" and the "Paraffin" evidence in ways which don't force us to dive off the deep end of the conspiracy theorists' diving board — with the "deep end" being: Lee Oswald never shot anyone on 11/22/63 — which is a conclusion that no sensible or reasonable person could possibly believe after evaluating all of the evidence in this whole case.

[Ben Holmes]

Once again David snipped the post, and ran from a majority of the questions...

Such AMAZING COWARDICE on David's part!!

(And David doesn't appear embarrassed at all by his cowardice!)

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 10:30:57 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Only a *MORON* thinks that Oswald washed his face, YET HAD MORE BARIUM & ANTIMONY ON HIS HANDS THAN ON HIS CHEEKS.
>
> You a moron, David?
>
> Explain it.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Sure. That one's easy. It's something I have already explained in a past post too, which you apparently ignored....

That's possible... I certainly pay little attention to the silly things that believers so often post.

> "Oswald could have washed his face and hands in the restroom while he was in the Texas Theater. And then he could have re-acquired deposits of gunpowder residue (nitrates on his hands and small amounts of barium and antimony on his face [and hands]) shortly thereafter when he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police in the theater.

Good try... sheer speculation...

> Another conceivable possibility is that Oswald wiped his face with his shirt sleeve (or jacket sleeve) at some point in time between JFK's assassination and the time when Oswald was given the paraffin test at Dallas City Hall several hours later.

Not possible.

> The above scenarios are, indeed, just speculation and guesswork on my part, and they should be properly labeled as such. But they seem to me to be somewhat reasonable pieces of speculation and are certainly within the realm of possibility for Oswald to have accomplished during the 80 minutes between President Kennedy's assassination and Oswald's capture in the Texas Theater." -- DVP; September 23, 2015
>
> And given the fact we KNOW that Oswald handled his recently-fired revolver when he was struggling with the police officers in the Texas Theater, it makes perfect (logical) sense that Oswald could conceivably have had MORE barium and antimony deposits on his HANDS than on his face (via the scenario which has LHO washing his hands and face in the restroom of the theater BEFORE he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police). Sounds like a perfect "Barium & Antimony" fit to me.

Sounds like a theory wishing that speculation could support it.


And actually, since the NAA testimony stated that the *BEST* that could be stated is that Oswald **MAY** HAVE HANDLED a pistol, you've just explained the
entire evidence in non-conspiratorial terms...

> Can I prove such a face-washing scenario took place on 11/22/63? Of course I can't. As I said in my 2015 post, it's purely guesswork on my part. But it's a scenario that helps to reasonably explain the "NAA" and the "Paraffin" evidence in ways which don't force us to dive off the deep end of the conspiracy theorists' diving board — with the "deep end" being: Lee Oswald never shot anyone on 11/22/63 — which is a conclusion that no sensible or reasonable person could possibly believe after evaluating all of the evidence in this whole case.

If this were actually true, you wouldn't be afraid to discuss 'controls' and what they do in science...

Nor would you be afraid of the actual amounts of Barium & Antimony found.

Tell us David... WHY THE CONSTANT COWARDICE ON THIS ISSUE?

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 1:44:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Once again David snipped the post, and ran from a majority of the questions...
>
> Such AMAZING COWARDICE on David's part!!
>
> (And David doesn't appear embarrassed at all by his cowardice!)
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 10:30:57 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > Only a *MORON* thinks that Oswald washed his face, YET HAD MORE BARIUM & ANTIMONY ON HIS HANDS THAN ON HIS CHEEKS.
> >
> > You a moron, David?
> >
> > Explain it.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Sure. That one's easy. It's something I have already explained in a past post too, which you apparently ignored....
>
>
> That's possible... I certainly pay little attention to the silly things that believers so often post.
>
>
> > "Oswald could have washed his face and hands in the restroom while he was in the Texas Theater. And then he could have re-acquired deposits of gunpowder residue (nitrates on his hands and small amounts of barium and antimony on his face [and hands]) shortly thereafter when he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police in the theater.
>
>
> Good try... sheer speculation...
>
>
> > Another conceivable possibility is that Oswald wiped his face with his shirt sleeve (or jacket sleeve) at some point in time between JFK's assassination and the time when Oswald was given the paraffin test at Dallas City Hall several hours later.
>
>
> Not possible.
>

You think it was impossible for Oswald to have wiped his face with his shirt (or jacket) sleeve between 12:30 PM and the time the paraffin test was administered?

Please explain why this simple face-wiping activity would have been "Not Possible" for Lee Oswald to have accomplished on 11/22/63.

[Ben Holmes]

This time, David refused to snip, but simply didn't answer most of the post.


Such AMAZING cowardice on your part, David!!!


How do you explain it?

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 11:12:35 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 1:44:40 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Once again David snipped the post, and ran from a majority of the questions...
> >
> > Such AMAZING COWARDICE on David's part!!
> >
> > (And David doesn't appear embarrassed at all by his cowardice!)
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 10:30:57 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > Only a *MORON* thinks that Oswald washed his face, YET HAD MORE BARIUM & ANTIMONY ON HIS HANDS THAN ON HIS CHEEKS.
> > >
> > > You a moron, David?
> > >
> > > Explain it.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Sure. That one's easy. It's something I have already explained in a past post too, which you apparently ignored....
> >
> >
> > That's possible... I certainly pay little attention to the silly things that believers so often post.
> >
> >
> > > "Oswald could have washed his face and hands in the restroom while he was in the Texas Theater. And then he could have re-acquired deposits of gunpowder residue (nitrates on his hands and small amounts of barium and antimony on his face [and hands]) shortly thereafter when he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police in the theater.
> >
> >
> > Good try... sheer speculation...
> >
> >
> > > Another conceivable possibility is that Oswald wiped his face with his shirt sleeve (or jacket sleeve) at some point in time between JFK's assassination and the time when Oswald was given the paraffin test at Dallas City Hall several hours later.
> >
> >
> > Not possible.
> >
>
> You think it was impossible for Oswald to have wiped his face with his shirt (or jacket) sleeve between 12:30 PM and the time the paraffin test was administered?

Not at all... certainly he could have done such a thing.

But *YOU* are asserting that it pulled a majority of Barium & Antimony from his cheeks... more than that, you're asserting that it pulled away more of the Barium and left more of the Antimony...

Of course, this is something you can't explain... so you RUN AWAY every time I've brought it up.

> Please explain why this simple face-wiping activity would have been "Not Possible" for Lee Oswald to have accomplished on 11/22/63.

Simple... his sleeve undoubtedly contained just as much, if not more Barium & Antimony.

Run David... TURN TAIL AND RUN AWAY!!!

> > > The above scenarios are, indeed, just speculation and guesswork on my part, and they should be properly labeled as such. But they seem to me to be somewhat reasonable pieces of speculation and are certainly within the realm of possibility for Oswald to have accomplished during the 80 minutes between President Kennedy's assassination and Oswald's capture in the Texas Theater." -- DVP; September 23, 2015
> > >
> > > And given the fact we KNOW that Oswald handled his recently-fired revolver when he was struggling with the police officers in the Texas Theater, it makes perfect (logical) sense that Oswald could conceivably have had MORE barium and antimony deposits on his HANDS than on his face (via the scenario which has LHO washing his hands and face in the restroom of the theater BEFORE he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police). Sounds like a perfect "Barium & Antimony" fit to me.
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a theory wishing that speculation could support it.
> >
> >
> > And actually, since the NAA testimony stated that the *BEST* that could be stated is that Oswald **MAY** HAVE HANDLED a pistol, you've just explained the
> > entire evidence in non-conspiratorial terms...

Complete silence...

This is why David prefers to snip the post - lurkers would have to go back to the previous post to see what David refused to answer.

> > > Can I prove such a face-washing scenario took place on 11/22/63? Of course I can't. As I said in my 2015 post, it's purely guesswork on my part. But it's a scenario that helps to reasonably explain the "NAA" and the "Paraffin" evidence in ways which don't force us to dive off the deep end of the conspiracy theorists' diving board — with the "deep end" being: Lee Oswald never shot anyone on 11/22/63 — which is a conclusion that no sensible or reasonable person could possibly believe after evaluating all of the evidence in this whole case.
> >
> > If this were actually true, you wouldn't be afraid to discuss 'controls' and what they do in science...

Dead silence...

> > Nor would you be afraid of the actual amounts of Barium & Antimony found.

More crickets...

[David Von Pein]

Now who's engaging in speculation?

Want some more speculation to add to the batch you just provided above? OK...

If Oswald shot JFK in just his T-shirt (which I think he probably did), then his brown outer shirt would not have necessarily been contaminated with any barium or antimony during the shooting. After LHO put on his brown shirt, he could have THEN wiped his face with his sleeve. Voila!

Your turn to speculate, Ben. Let's see how many more ways you can avoid having to admit Oswald shot anybody.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Simple... his sleeve undoubtedly contained just as much, if not more Barium & Antimony.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Is this your way of admitting that Oswald DID fire some rifle shots on 11/22/63?

Or did all that barium and antimony get into his sleeve via some other (innocent) means?

[Ben Holmes]

You demand speculation instead of evidence, you get what you asked for.

You pretend that your speculation makes sense, I prove that it doesn't.

> Want some more speculation to add to the batch you just provided above? OK...
>
> If Oswald shot JFK in just his T-shirt (which I think he probably did),

This would explain why witnesses thought the shooter was wearing a white shirt... but you get stumped by the pants, don't you?

Nor does it fit at least three of the witnesses... who described a button down shirt... one witness described the light colored shirt WITH A T-SHIRT UNDERNEATH!

> then his brown outer shirt would not have necessarily been contaminated with any barium or antimony during the shooting. After LHO put on his brown shirt, he could have THEN wiped his face with his sleeve. Voila!

Sadly, doesn't fit any of the known evidence.

> Your turn to speculate, Ben. Let's see how many more ways you can avoid having to admit Oswald shot anybody.

Nah, I'll stick with the evidence.

And note for the record that you *STILL* refuse to address scientific controls.

> > Run David... TURN TAIL AND RUN AWAY!!!
> >
> >
> > > > > The above scenarios are, indeed, just speculation and guesswork on my part, and they should be properly labeled as such. But they seem to me to be somewhat reasonable pieces of speculation and are certainly within the realm of possibility for Oswald to have accomplished during the 80 minutes between President Kennedy's assassination and Oswald's capture in the Texas Theater." -- DVP; September 23, 2015
> > > > >
> > > > > And given the fact we KNOW that Oswald handled his recently-fired revolver when he was struggling with the police officers in the Texas Theater, it makes perfect (logical) sense that Oswald could conceivably have had MORE barium and antimony deposits on his HANDS than on his face (via the scenario which has LHO washing his hands and face in the restroom of the theater BEFORE he again handled his revolver during the struggle with the police). Sounds like a perfect "Barium & Antimony" fit to me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like a theory wishing that speculation could support it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And actually, since the NAA testimony stated that the *BEST* that could be stated is that Oswald **MAY** HAVE HANDLED a pistol, you've just explained the
> > > > entire evidence in non-conspiratorial terms...
> >
> >
> > Complete silence...
> >
> > This is why David prefers to snip the post - lurkers would have to go back to the previous post to see what David refused to answer.
> >
> >
> > > > > Can I prove such a face-washing scenario took place on 11/22/63? Of course I can't. As I said in my 2015 post, it's purely guesswork on my part. But it's a scenario that helps to reasonably explain the "NAA" and the "Paraffin" evidence in ways which don't force us to dive off the deep end of the conspiracy theorists' diving board — with the "deep end" being: Lee Oswald never shot anyone on 11/22/63 — which is a conclusion that no sensible or reasonable person could possibly believe after evaluating all of the evidence in this whole case.
> > > >
> > > > If this were actually true, you wouldn't be afraid to discuss 'controls' and what they do in science...
> >
> >
> >
> > Dead silence...

More dead silence...

> > > > Nor would you be afraid of the actual amounts of Barium & Antimony found.
> >
> >
> > More crickets...

Still a coward, eh David?

[Ben Holmes]

Nope.

I'm demonstrating how *YOUR* speculation fails.

I don't need to accept your false beliefs in order to do that.

If you *PRESUME* that Oswald fired, THEN HIS SHIRT WAS CONTAMINATED.

That's a fact.

[David Von Pein]

Not if he wasn't wearing the shirt when he fired the rifle. (Duh.)

[Ben Holmes]

Nor if he went scuba-diving after the assassination and before the theater.

Speculation piled on top of speculation is simply a mountain of speculation...

It doesn't address the known evidence.

Indeed, YOU RAN LIKE A CHICKEN when I brought it up.

Why is that, David?

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Speculation piled on top of speculation is simply a mountain of speculation...

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Irony alert!!

[Ben Holmes]

COWARD ALERT!!!

[Jason Burke]

Dumbfuck alert!