David Von Pein Slams The Warren Commission!

Ben Holmes

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 10:16:44 AM2/21/17

to

Ben Holmes:
>>Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast.
>>

David Von Pein:
>
>This is an outright lie.
>

So the Warren Commission - having in their hands evidence of Oswald's guilt, failed to publish it.

IOW's, the Warren Commission simply lied...

I await your citation to the Warren Commission's use of this 'evidence of Oswald's guilt' - but I won't hold my breath.

The facts tell the tale, don't they?

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 11:00:07 AM2/21/17

to

Let's see some of the stuff Ben Holmes deceptively has omitted from the above discussion.....

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is an outright lie. The NAA tests, according to John Gallagher (see his testimony above), showed a POSITIVE result on all casts for the presence of some deposits of antimony and barium (the casts weren't checked for nitrates at all, remember).

And the obvious reason for there not being a lot MORE deposits found on the casts is because the casts were washed before going through the NAA process.

So it's rather humorous that any CTer would want to utilize the NAA cast tests at all, because they definitely showed some presence of barium and antimony on Oswald's face and hands.

Now, Ben, did Dr. Vincent P. Guinn WASH his casts before subjecting them to his NAA tests? (I kinda doubt he did.)

And why on Earth conspiracy fanatic Ben Holmes [in this post] is propping up the fact that NOT ALL of the barium and antimony was washed off the casts is anyone's guess. That's hysterical! That means that TWO properties that you'd expect to find on a gunman were still present on Oswald's casts during the NAA analysis.

And yet that is supposed to somehow EXONERATE Mr. Oswald and prove a conspiracy????

Incredible illogic.

DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Ben Holmes is digging himself ever deeper into Mother Earth with this "paraffin/NAA" thing....

How so?

Because even if I did misunderstand the exact area of "Paraffin testing" vs. "NAA testing" that Ben was talking about in this 2009 post, Ben still has nowhere to go with this statement of his:

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

Because whether Ben was talking ONLY about the "paraffin/nitrate" test (as I thought he was only talking about there; and who wouldn't, given the brief post made by Holmes there?), or whether he was actually referring to the "NAA/Barium/Antimony" test --- it doesn't make a bit of difference! Because EITHER WAY, Ben's statement is a blatant falsehood....because NEITHER test constitutes "Physical proof that he [Oswald] didn't fire a rifle that day", as Ben so boldly suggested in 2009.

So Ben is cooked either way.

And I wonder why Ben thinks a POSITIVE NAA result for barium and antimony really means, as Holmes asserted today....

"Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- B. Holmes; 9/16/15

And yet I am always the target of Ben's brusk "YOU'RE A LIAR, VON PEIN" attacks nearly every day at the Amazon.com JFK forums.

Pot once more is introduced to kettle.

Somebody stick a fork in Mr. Ben Holmes --- he's (over)done.

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Tell us Davey... have you read Gallagher's testimony?

If so, what reason did Gallagher, an EXPERT witness, give for being unable to "determine the significance" of the positive readings of barium & antimony on the cheek cast?

[...]

And if Gallagher, THE *EXPERT* WITNESS for the Warren Commission, was unwilling to ascribe what positive readings he got to Oswald firing a rifle - WHY ARE YOU LABELING IT A LIE WHEN I MERELY REPEAT WHAT THE WARREN COMMISSION EXPERT WITNESS STATED?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It sounds like you're trying to walk back this lie you told earlier this month....

"Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- B. Holmes

The above statement is NOT true. LHO's NAA cheek cast definitely was POSITIVE for two different elements--which were, as far as I can tell, the ONLY TWO elements that were tested for during the FBI's NAA tests.

And this 2009 statement by Holmes is definitely wrong too....

"The cheek cast of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that day." -- Ben Holmes

And, btw, I have never once suggested that the positive "Barium/Antimony" NAA test proves that Oswald fired a rifle. In fact, earlier I stated precisely the opposite when I said this....

"But 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

I'm beginning to think Ben Holmes is more mixed up on this "NAA/Paraffin/Barium/Antimony/Nitrate" thing than I ever was.

DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Here is some more of John Gallagher's Warren Commission testimony.....

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 that 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.]

----------------------

But the above testimony doesn't mean the NAA tests were NEGATIVE. They were still POSITIVE, but Gallagher was giving a possible alternate reason for the POSITIVE reading other than Oswald firing a rifle.

But Ben seems to think Gallagher's explanation changes the POSITIVE Barium/Antimony reading to a NEGATIVE one, because Holmes said this in an earlier post (which is most definitely incorrect)....

"Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- Ben Holmes

In addition, I think it's also important to note the completely honest and forthright nature of the testimony of FBI agent John F. Gallagher above (and Norman Redlich's questioning of Gallagher). The WC and the FBI were telling it like it was -- i.e., a POSITIVE result on the cheek of Oswald for barium and antimony did NOT necessarily mean that Oswald had fired a rifle on November 22nd.

And that type of honesty and frankness on the part of both the Warren Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation sure doesn't help out the conspiracy theorists, because many CTers have always believed the Commission and the FBI were on a mission to railroad Oswald and prove his guilt at all possible costs. But the above excerpts from John Gallagher's testimony definitely tend to disprove that notion.

So, let's stick yet another fork in Holmes. He's now burnt to an absolute crisp.

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Davey is running like a yellow dog right now. He *KNOWS* what I spoke of earlier... the relevant facts that he's omitting.

He *KNOWS* that the paraffin cast showed a *HIGHER* level of barium & antimony on the OUTSIDE of the cast ... the 'control' of the test.

He surely cannot possibly be too dumb to understand what that means.

Such INCREDIBLE dishonesty!!!

Tell us Davey - why would *anyone* believe anything you say after the lies you've told recently?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Brilliant, Benny. And somehow a "HIGHER level" of the two elements means the overall NAA cheek test was "NEGATIVE", which is what you said in an earlier post.

Is that your ridiculous reasoning process, Ben? If so, think again.

No matter how much double-talk Ben gushes forth, this statement below is (and always will be) an outright falsehood....

"Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- Ben Holmes

Tell us Benji - why would *anyone* believe anything you say after the above provable lie you've told recently?

Plus, as I just said above, the Warren Commission (Redlich) and the FBI (Gallagher) were ADMITTING ON THE RECORD that, in essence, the NAA cheek test was useless and worthless when they said the positive result could not be utilized to say whether or not Oswald fired a rifle.

In other words, the test was meaningless—and Redlich and Gallagher said so! On the WC record!

So, Ben, why are you griping about it? Redlich and Gallagher, in effect, AGREE WITH YOU — the NAA test cannot be used to say if Oswald shot Kennedy.

And that honesty also shows up in the Warren Commission's final report too — on Page 562, right here.

[Another fork is now inserted into Holmes' ravaged torso.]

DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Pat Speer's lengthy Internet article, "Casts Of Contention", is a very interesting piece. But I can't really see how Pat's article changes the previously-linked "unreliable" determination reached by the Warren Commission on Page 562 of the Warren Report.

Speer, however, thinks that there is something "suspicious" about the way the NAA cheek test was treated by the FBI and the Warren Commission. (CTers, of course, think that a lot of things are "suspicious" in the JFK case.)

Quoting from Pat Speer's article:

"On [August 31, 1964], the Dallas Morning News runs their own article on Guinn's statements in Scotland about the use of NAA, entitled "New Test May Tell if Oswald Shot a Gun." The FBI's Special Agent in Charge for Dallas, J. Gordon Shanklin, who'd previously told the New York Times that the paraffin tests performed in Dallas proved Oswald's guilt, calls Laboratory Director Conrad and warns him about the article, written by Hugh Aynesworth. Beyond the statements by Guinn already cited, Aynesworth relates that Guinn "said when it was concluded that Oswald's guilt could not be proved or disproved from paraffin tests made by the Dallas Police, he asked the FBI to try the neutron activation analysis technique. Guinn described the experiment in this manner: A rifle similar to the one that killed the president was used. One person fired the rifle on eight different occasions and each time was given the paraffin test. 'Only one out of the eight experiments gave a positive identification,' Guinn said. Then they repeated the experiment using radioactivity. 'It was positive in all eight cases, and showed a primer on both hands and cheeks,' he said. 'Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor. Remember that they already had been through the chemical tests which would wash particles away. I can say for the moment that we found no barium but we found antimony in every case,' Guinn added."

[End Speer Quote.]

-------------

Evidently the last thing mentioned in the above quote is apparently something that never happened at all, according to a later statement made by Dr. Vincent Guinn written on September 25, 1964, in which Guinn said he never subjected the actual "Oswald casts" to any NAA analysis at all. See Speer's article for more details.

And I want to point out and emphasize the following portion of the above excerpt from Speer's article....

"A rifle similar to the one that killed the president was used. One person fired the rifle on eight different occasions and each time was given the paraffin test. 'Only one out of the eight experiments gave a positive identification,' Guinn said."

Therefore, after performing EIGHT separate standard paraffin (nitrate) tests on a person who definitely HAD fired a rifle similar to Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano rifle, SEVEN of the eight tests revealed just exactly the same thing that the FBI's 1964 test revealed after FBI agent Charles Killion had fired Oswald's rifle three times --- a negative result for the presence of any nitrates.

So much for the FBI/Killion test being a big fat lie (which is what some conspiracy theorists have told me they think that FBI test was---a lie).

Or do CTers also think Dr. Guinn lied SEVEN times too about the nitrate/paraffin tests he says he performed?

Lots more here....

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

And here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-116.html

Ben Holmes

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 11:23:44 AM2/21/17

to

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> Let's see some of the stuff Ben Holmes deceptively has omitted from the above discussion.....
>
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> This is an outright lie.

You're lying again, David.

The Warren Commission certainly thought this was negative - can you name *ANY* evidence against Oswald that was not used?

(Watch as David runs from this simple challenge like the coward he is...)

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 11:40:51 AM2/21/17

to

Please notice how Ben is now trying to avoid taking any responsibility for this blatant falsehood he said years ago:

"Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- B. Holmes

The above statement is just a flat-out lie, and Holmes HAS to know it --- because Oswald's "NAA cheek cast" was NOT NEGATIVE for the presence of the ONLY TWO ELEMENTS his cheek cast was tested for---barium & antimony. That test was POSITIVE, without a doubt.

So, now, Ben wants to move the goal posts and claim this....

"The Warren Commission certainly thought this was negative." -- B. Holmes

Hilarious piece of "goal post moving" there, Ben! I love it.

But nothing will change this lie into a truthful statement....

"Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- B. Holmes

And even with such a blatant lie in print for all time, Holmes suggests....

"Then you stand corrected, and you'll immediately remove that section from your website, since it's clearly *YOUR* mistake, right?" -- B. Holmes

Incredible!

Ben Holmes

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 11:46:51 AM2/21/17

to

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 8:40:51 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:23:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 8:00:07 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Let's see some of the stuff Ben Holmes deceptively has omitted from the above discussion.....
> > >
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > This is an outright lie.
> >
> > You're lying again, David.
> >
> > The Warren Commission certainly thought this was negative - can you name *ANY* evidence against Oswald that was not used?
> >
> > (Watch as David runs from this simple challenge like the coward he is...)
>
> Please notice how Ben is now trying to avoid taking any responsibility for this blatant falsehood he said years ago:
>
> "Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." -- B. Holmes

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

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 11:51:40 AM2/21/17

to

How can it be anything BUT "positive", Ben? The only 2 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?

You're showing desperation, Ben. Maybe you should quit now before you bury yourself any further in denial.

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 3:45:08 PM2/21/17

to

Oh, good! Holmes is going to change the conditions and move the goal posts (again)! How lovely.

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! Not once. And neither did the WC or FBI agent Gallagher or anyone else connected with the WC. Just the opposite, in fact, as deceitful Holmes knows. Just see Page 562 of the WCR for proof that the WC never maintained that the NAA tests were indicative of LHO's guilt....

Pg. 562:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0293b.htm

You'd think there would be a few CTers who just might want to give the WC a couple of bonus points for their honesty exhibited there on Page 562. But nooooo. Never would a CTer do that. Certainly not Ben Holmes. Right, BH?

Bud

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 3:53:56 PM2/21/17

to

<snicker> How else would Oswald come to have barium and antimony on his cheeks?

Take note lurkers, this is considered exonerating evidence to conspiracy retards.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 3:56:14 PM2/21/17

to

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> INSTANT REPLAY....
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.

And *STILL* failed to do so... you're a coward, David Von Pein - you can't even publicly admit that you've failed to do this.

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Conversely, why don't YOU try citing something in the Warren Commission Report or in the 26 WC volumes saying that the NAA cheek cast results were "negative".
>
> Can you do that, Ben?

Since you cannot support your lie, you're turning the burden over to me...

Yet you REFUSE to publicly admit that you cannot support your claim.

You're a YELLOW COWARD, David Von Pein...

Now, on to the proof you seem unable to read:

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.

Only to a moron would I have to point out that the implied answer here is "no." Mr. Gallagher was COMPLETELY UNABLE to testify that his tests showed that Oswald fired a rifle.

If it's not "positive" - THEN THE TEST WAS NEGATIVE.

Even the Warren Commission understood this... in a memo from Redlich to Dulles, Redlich makes the following points:

1) "At best the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain;"
2) "There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle;"
3) "The presence of barium and antimony in the cheek cast is of no significance because Oswald might have touched his face with his hands after firing a pistol;"
4) "barium and antimony are found on a variety of common substances."

You lose!

Ben Holmes

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 4:01:34 PM2/21/17

to

Who's moving the goalposts?

I stated that the test was negative, YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT THAT IS A LIE.

So you need to cite for it.

This is quite simple... the test was either "positive," or it was "negative."

> 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! Not once. And neither did the WC or FBI agent Gallagher or anyone else connected with the WC. Just the opposite, in fact, as deceitful Holmes knows. Just see Page 562 of the WCR for proof that the WC never maintained that the NAA tests were indicative of LHO's guilt....

So when I stated that "Oswald came up NEGATIVE on the NAA testing of his cheek cast." - it was merely the truth, wasn't it, David?

You can't call me a liar then refuse to back up your claim.

YOU CAN'T CALL *ME* A LIAR THEN REFUSE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM!!

I'll simply point out what a despicable person you are...

> Pg. 562:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0293b.htm
>
> You'd think there would be a few CTers who just might want to give the WC a couple of bonus points for their honesty exhibited there on Page 562. But nooooo. Never would a CTer do that. Certainly not Ben Holmes. Right, BH?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Warren Commission was "honest?"

Do you have the courage of your convictions?

Will you DEFEND this alleged "honesty" of the Warren Commission?

Ben Holmes

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 4:02:28 PM2/21/17

to

Are you so much the moron that you WANT lurkers to know you didn't bother to read Gallagher's testimony?

David Von Pein

Feb 21, 2017, 4:53:40 PM2/21/17

to

On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 1:25:36 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 3:56:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > INSTANT REPLAY....
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > You have, of course, failed to cite anything from the Warren Commission stating that this was a positive result.
> >
> >
> > And *STILL* failed to do so... you're a coward, David Von Pein - you can't even publicly admit that you've failed to do this.
> >
> >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Conversely, why don't YOU try citing something in the Warren Commission Report or in the 26 WC volumes saying that the NAA cheek cast results were "negative".
> > >
> > > Can you do that, Ben?
> >
> > Since you cannot support your lie, you're turning the burden over to me...
> >
> > Yet you REFUSE to publicly admit that you cannot support your claim.
> >
> > You're a YELLOW COWARD, David Von Pein...
> >
> >
> > Now, on to the proof you seem unable to read:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Only to a moron would I have to point out that the implied answer here is "no." Mr. Gallagher was COMPLETELY UNABLE to testify that his tests showed that Oswald fired a rifle.
> >
> > If it's not "positive" - THEN THE TEST WAS NEGATIVE.
>
> What a stupid position. A negative result is a negative result and a positive result is a positive result.

Then all you need to do is quote Gallagher stating that Oswald had fired a rifle.

Bud

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 5:23:09 PM2/21/17

to

Wrong. I only need point out that what you said was stupid. You said this...

"If it's not "positive" - THEN THE TEST WAS NEGATIVE."

Asserting a stupid statement strongly doesn`t make it true. You are employing the false choice fallacy.

David Von Pein

unread,

Feb 21, 2017, 5:31:53 PM2/21/17

to

You have no clue what you're saying. You REALLY think that's the dispute? You're nuts. As I told you previously, I have never said that a positive NAA or Paraffin test indicated Oswald fired a rifle. I've maintained exactly the opposite, as I said years ago when I told you this in 2015:

"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

The whole "dispute" is over these two blatantly inaccurate quotes you uttered years ago:

unread,

Feb 22, 2017, 10:22:37 AM2/22/17

to

You throw these lines over your shoulder as you run.

Unless there is a test that can determine with accuracy whether someone fired a rifle this is all silly gamesmanship.

>
> > > > > You lose!

unread,

Feb 22, 2017, 3:48:18 PM2/22/17

to

It is nothing evidence. Just the kind conspiracy retards obsess over.