David Von Pein Wouldn't Know The Truth If He Was Hit Over The HEAD With It.

[Ben Holmes]

David Von Pein:
>My "case" isn't weak, Mr. Holmes. You've got to be clueless of the verified facts to say such a thing.
>
>Also....keep in mind that the hand and cheek paraffin casts of Oswald were WASHED prior to being subjected to the NAA analysis. And the washing of the casts, according to John Gallagher of the FBI, "will remove portions of the barium and antimony from these casts" [15 H 749]....

This is a non sequitur...

It presumes that the paraffin tests were positive, and the NAA tests were negative.

But all of David's lying on the NAA will come to a screeching halt. Because he's either going to stop responding (which I predict), or he's going to honestly and correctly answer these two questions:

What did the WC attempt to prove with Killion's tests?

What did Guinn prove about Killion's test?


P.S. I'd invite "Bud" to help David, but "Bud" simply doesn't know enough to answer these questions.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

What did the WC attempt to prove with Killion's tests?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

They merely wanted to confirm what they already knew was probably true -- i.e., that a paraffin (nitrate) test is completely unreliable and is of no value when trying to determine whether or not a person has recently fired a gun. And Killion's test did, indeed, prove the unreliability of the paraffin test, because Killion tested NEGATIVE on both of his hands and his cheek after firing Oswald's Carcano rifle.

Ben apparently wanted me to answer his question this way: The WC wanted to prove, via the Killion/FBI paraffin test, that Lee Harvey Oswald definitely fired a rifle on 11/22/63.

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint Ben, because even though the Killion test definitely DID prove something to the Warren Commission (i.e., it proved that a person who recently fired Oswald's very own rifle can test NEGATIVE for the presence of nitrates on his FACE, just like Lee Oswald did), the Commission still did not utilize that information to try and prove that Oswald had fired any guns on 11/22/63.

For the proof that my last sentence above is a 100% accurate and true statement, all that Ben or any other conspiracy theorist has to do is to read Pages 561 and 562 of the Warren Report. On that page, these words can be found (emphasis is mine):

"Since gunpowder residues contain nitrates, the theory behind the test is that if a cast reacts positively...it provides evidence that the suspect recently fired a weapon. In fact, however, the test is ***completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has recently fired a weapon or whether he has not***. .... Also, the mere handling of a weapon may leave nitrates on the skin. ***A positive reaction is, therefore, valueless in determining whether a suspect has recently fired a weapon***. Conversely, a person who has recently fired a weapon may not show a positive reaction to the paraffin test, particularly if the weapon was a rifle. .... ***The unreliability of the paraffin test has been demonstrated by experiments run by the FBI***. In one experiment, conducted prior to the assassination, paraffin tests were performed on 17 men who had just fired 5 shots with a .38-caliber revolver. Eight men tested negative in both hands, three men tested positive on the idle hand and negative on the firing hand, two men tested positive on the firing hand and negative on the idle hand, and four men tested positive on both their firing and idle hands. In a second experiment, paraffin tests were per formed on 29 persons, 9 of whom had just fired a revolver or an automatic, and 20 of whom had not fired a weapon. All 29 persons tested positive on either or both hands. In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative." -- Warren Commission Final Report; Page 561 and Page 562

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

BEN HOLMES SAID:

What did Guinn prove about Killion's test?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He proved that the results of Killion's test were a perfect match to 87.5% of Guinn's own tests (i.e., 7 out of his 8 Paraffin/Nitrate tests came back with a NEGATIVE result).

As far as "proving" anything with respect to the Killion test regarding any NAA (Barium/Antimony) findings, no comparison can even be made there, because (as far as I know) Killion's cheek cast was not subjected to the Neutron Activation Analysis testing. So Dr. Guinn "proved" absolutely NOTHING in that regard at all, since no comparison could even be done.

Looks like a bad day for Ben Holmes. His two big bombshell questions for DVP turned out to be less than a wet sparkler on a rainy Fourth of July.

Try again tomorrow, Ben. Between now and then, I'm sure you can invent some new way to embarrass yourself even more than you did today. It won't be easy, but I'm confident you can manage it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> What did the WC attempt to prove with Killion's tests?
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> They merely wanted to confirm what they already knew was probably true -- i.e., that a paraffin (nitrate) test is completely unreliable and is of no value when trying to determine whether or not a person has recently fired a gun.

You're lying again, David.

Why don't you quote the question, and Cunningham's answer?

You *DO* know precisely what I'm talking about, don't you?

>And Killion's test did, indeed, prove the unreliability of the paraffin test, because Killion tested NEGATIVE on both of his hands and his cheek after firing Oswald's Carcano rifle.
>
> Ben apparently wanted me to answer his question this way: The WC wanted to prove, via the Killion/FBI paraffin test, that Lee Harvey Oswald definitely fired a rifle on 11/22/63.

A shamefully stupid strawman.

[nonsense related to strawman deleted..]

So, what we have so far is an absolute LIE on David's part to the first question... on to the next:

> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> What did Guinn prove about Killion's test?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> He proved that the results of Killion's test were a perfect match to 87.5% of Guinn's own tests (i.e., 7 out of his 8 Paraffin/Nitrate tests came back with a NEGATIVE result).

What a GUTLESS LIAR!!!

I guess I'm just going to have to keep asking those two questions... because you've lied on both of them.

This is the third time without an honest answer...

[David Von Pein]

I think that most "lurkers" here (if there are any at all) will agree with me when I say that I have been very patient with Ben's non-stop assault on me in recent days. And, relatively speaking, I've even been quite friendly and cordial toward the person named Ben who calls me a LIAR in every post he writes. I think everyone would agree that I *could* be a lot more hateful toward Ben if I chose to do so. And it would be totally warranted as well.

But patience does have a tendency to wear thin. Especially with someone like Ben, who obviously has no capacity for properly evaluating ANYTHING relating to the JFK case. (He and Jim DiEugenio must have gone to the same Conspiracy School in California or something.)

I answered your two questions as best I could. And I cited Page 561 of the WCR to bolster my argument, to prove that the Warren Commission did NOT use the paraffin or NAA tests to try and prove LHO's guilt. (That's just a FACT.)

If you aren't satisfied with my responses....so be it. But I answered your inquiries as truthfully as I could.

Have a wonderful happy day, Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 10:12:24 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 12:12:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > What did the WC attempt to prove with Killion's tests?
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > They merely wanted to confirm what they already knew was probably true -- i.e., that a paraffin (nitrate) test is completely unreliable and is of no value when trying to determine whether or not a person has recently fired a gun.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, David.
> >
> > Why don't you quote the question, and Cunningham's answer?
> >
> > You *DO* know precisely what I'm talking about, don't you?

David once again showed his amazing dishonesty and cowardice... by refusing to address this.

> > >And Killion's test did, indeed, prove the unreliability of the paraffin test, because Killion tested NEGATIVE on both of his hands and his cheek after firing Oswald's Carcano rifle.
> > >
> > > Ben apparently wanted me to answer his question this way: The WC wanted to prove, via the Killion/FBI paraffin test, that Lee Harvey Oswald definitely fired a rifle on 11/22/63.
> >
> >
> > A shamefully stupid strawman.
> >
> > [nonsense related to strawman deleted..]
> >
> > So, what we have so far is an absolute LIE on David's part to the first question... on to the next:
> >
> >
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > What did Guinn prove about Killion's test?
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > He proved that the results of Killion's test were a perfect match to 87.5% of Guinn's own tests (i.e., 7 out of his 8 Paraffin/Nitrate tests came back with a NEGATIVE result).
> >
> > What a GUTLESS LIAR!!!
> >
> > I guess I'm just going to have to keep asking those two questions... because you've lied on both of them.
> >
> > This is the third time without an honest answer...
>
> I think that most "lurkers" here (if there are any at all) will agree with me when I say that I have been very patient with Ben's non-stop assault on me in recent days. And, relatively speaking, I've even been quite friendly and cordial toward the person named Ben who calls me a LIAR in every post he writes. I think everyone would agree that I *could* be a lot more hateful toward Ben if I chose to do so. And it would be totally warranted as well.

Tut tut tut, David... I'm PROVING you a liar in every post.

And YOU ARE REFUSING TO DEFEND YOURSELF...

It would be incredibly easy, were you telling the truth, to simply cite the relevant evidence & testimony that supports what you're saying...

But you can't do it.

Which PROVES who's telling the truth, doesn't it David?

WHAT WAS THE RELEVANT QUESTION DIRECTED AT CUNNINGHAM - AND WHAT WAS HIS ANSWER?

And how does that prove that you're lying about the Warren Commission's understanding of Killion's tests?

You've also refused to defend the Warren Commission's total lack of honesty in burying Guinn's tests...

> But patience does have a tendency to wear thin.

I predicted it. Soon you'll simply refuse to answer at all - because there comes a point when your lies simply overwhelm you.

> Especially with someone like Ben, who obviously has no capacity for properly evaluating ANYTHING relating to the JFK case. (He and Jim DiEugenio must have gone to the same Conspiracy School in California or something.)

If I can't "properly evaluate" - what does that say about you? WHO RUNS AWAY EVERY SINGLE TIME I POST THE QUESTION THAT SHOWS YOU A LIAR?

If I were unable to "properly evaluate" the evidence, then YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CORRECT ME...

Instead, you run away.

Now tell us about Cunningham... or run like the yellow coward you are again...

> I answered your two questions as best I could. And I cited Page 561 of the WCR to bolster my argument, to prove that the Warren Commission did NOT use the paraffin or NAA tests to try and prove LHO's guilt. (That's just a FACT.)

I asked you to quote Cunningham - and you refused.

It's truly amazing how often you refuse to answer the very questions that, if given an honest answer, would prove you a liar.

The Warren Commission knew that the tests showed Oswald's innocence, so they used Killion to obviate it... and buried Guinn.

YOU KNOW THIS - yet you're willing to lie about it.

> If you aren't satisfied with my responses....so be it. But I answered your inquiries as truthfully as I could.

No David, you didn't. You lied about Guinn agreeing with Killion. Guinn's NAA tests showed quite clearly that Killion's tests were meaningless.

YOU LIED ABOUT THAT... and continue to lie about it.

Why are you so afraid to answer the questions that prove you a liar?

> Have a wonderful happy day, Ben.

I'm having a GREAT day... I'm doing what I set out to do - prove that there's no such thing as an honest & knowledgeable believer.

Where are we now? Is this the fifth time you've refused to answer the two questions honestly?

[Bud]

I know enough about the way you argue that you are afraid to put your position out there with the evidence that backs it up.

[David Von Pein]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 1:29:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 10:12:24 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 12:12:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > >
> > > > What did the WC attempt to prove with Killion's tests?
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >
> > > > They merely wanted to confirm what they already knew was probably true -- i.e., that a paraffin (nitrate) test is completely unreliable and is of no value when trying to determine whether or not a person has recently fired a gun.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're lying again, David.
> > >
> > > Why don't you quote the question, and Cunningham's answer?
> > >
> > > You *DO* know precisely what I'm talking about, don't you?
>
>
> David once again showed his amazing dishonesty and cowardice... by refusing to address this.
>

Why don't YOU just spell it all out for us, oh great Mr. Holmes? Please do. Because I want to hear what YOU think the evil WC was up to regarding the NAA & Paraffin tests.

>
>
> > > >And Killion's test did, indeed, prove the unreliability of the paraffin test, because Killion tested NEGATIVE on both of his hands and his cheek after firing Oswald's Carcano rifle.
> > > >
> > > > Ben apparently wanted me to answer his question this way: The WC wanted to prove, via the Killion/FBI paraffin test, that Lee Harvey Oswald definitely fired a rifle on 11/22/63.
> > >
> > >
> > > A shamefully stupid strawman.
> > >
> > > [nonsense related to strawman deleted..]
> > >
> > > So, what we have so far is an absolute LIE on David's part to the first question... on to the next:
> > >
> > >
> > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > >
> > > > What did Guinn prove about Killion's test?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >
> > > > He proved that the results of Killion's test were a perfect match to 87.5% of Guinn's own tests (i.e., 7 out of his 8 Paraffin/Nitrate tests came back with a NEGATIVE result).
> > >
> > > What a GUTLESS LIAR!!!
> > >
> > > I guess I'm just going to have to keep asking those two questions... because you've lied on both of them.
> > >
> > > This is the third time without an honest answer...
> >
> > I think that most "lurkers" here (if there are any at all) will agree with me when I say that I have been very patient with Ben's non-stop assault on me in recent days. And, relatively speaking, I've even been quite friendly and cordial toward the person named Ben who calls me a LIAR in every post he writes. I think everyone would agree that I *could* be a lot more hateful toward Ben if I chose to do so. And it would be totally warranted as well.
>
>
> Tut tut tut, David... I'm PROVING you a liar in every post.
>

I still have a little patience left....thankfully. :-)

> And YOU ARE REFUSING TO DEFEND YOURSELF...
>
> It would be incredibly easy, were you telling the truth, to simply cite the relevant evidence & testimony that supports what you're saying...
>
> But you can't do it.
>
> Which PROVES who's telling the truth, doesn't it David?
>
> WHAT WAS THE RELEVANT QUESTION DIRECTED AT CUNNINGHAM - AND WHAT WAS HIS ANSWER?
>
> And how does that prove that you're lying about the Warren Commission's understanding of Killion's tests?
>

Again, spell it out for us weak-minded "liars", Ben.

Cunningham's quote on Page 561 of the WCR says that he would not expect to see a positive result on a person's cheek after firing a rifle. And the WC, just before quoting Cunningham, specifically says "NITRATES" would not be expected to show up after firing a rifle (as opposed to other elements, via an NAA test, which is different).

I don't see anything wrong with Page 561 of the WR. But you obviously see a lot of obfuscation and lying there. Right, Ben? (But, then too, CTers always do "see" a lot of lying everywhere.)

[Let the "You're lying again, David" comments commence.]

> You've also refused to defend the Warren Commission's total lack of honesty in burying Guinn's tests...
>
>
>
> > But patience does have a tendency to wear thin.
>
>
> I predicted it. Soon you'll simply refuse to answer at all - because there comes a point when your lies simply overwhelm you.
>

Maybe I should try counting to ten. That sometimes helps people tolerate the untolerable.

>
> > Especially with someone like Ben, who obviously has no capacity for properly evaluating ANYTHING relating to the JFK case. (He and Jim DiEugenio must have gone to the same Conspiracy School in California or something.)
>
> If I can't "properly evaluate" - what does that say about you? WHO RUNS AWAY EVERY SINGLE TIME I POST THE QUESTION THAT SHOWS YOU A LIAR?
>
> If I were unable to "properly evaluate" the evidence, then YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CORRECT ME...
>
> Instead, you run away.
>
> Now tell us about Cunningham... or run like the yellow coward you are again...
>
>
> > I answered your two questions as best I could. And I cited Page 561 of the WCR to bolster my argument, to prove that the Warren Commission did NOT use the paraffin or NAA tests to try and prove LHO's guilt. (That's just a FACT.)
>
>
> I asked you to quote Cunningham - and you refused.
>
> It's truly amazing how often you refuse to answer the very questions that, if given an honest answer, would prove you a liar.
>
> The Warren Commission knew that the tests showed Oswald's innocence, so they used Killion to obviate it... and buried Guinn.
>
> YOU KNOW THIS - yet you're willing to lie about it.
>

How do the NAA cheeks tests show "Oswald's innocence"? How? Please tell me. Because I don't think they show that at all. But, as I've said many times recently, I don't think the NAA or Paraffin tests necessarily show Oswald's GUILT either. I agree with the WC on Page 561 --- such tests are not reliable in trying to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE whether or not a person has recently fired a gun. And THAT'S really the bottom line of this discussion -- the RELIABILITY of the Paraffin and NAA tests.

And if you're going to retort with -- Well, Dave, you KNOW the NAA tests ARE very reliable, don't you? ....

My response will always be: Well, Ben, then why don't you want to accept the results of Oswald's NAA cheek test from '63? It was certainly not NEGATIVE as you want to believe. It showed the presence of BOTH elements that one would expect to find on a person's body if they had, indeed, fired a rifle or a revolver. So I want to still know HOW you can think that such results can be used to EXONERATE Lee Oswald? How is that even possible with the presence of those elements on Oswald's face?*

* Let me emphasize again that I think the NAA and Paraffin tests should NOT be used when forming a list of reasons to accept Oswald's guilt. And when I said the other day that I have "never" utilized the NAA or Paraffin tests to "prove" Oswald's guilt, I wasn't implying that I have never *discussed* or *debated* these points about NAA/Paraffin with CTers over the years. When the topic comes up (like now), yes, I'll discuss it. But as far as propping up the NAA/Paraffin results as concrete PROOF of LHO's guilt, I have maintained for years that they are NOT concrete PROOF of his guilt. (And you won't find the words "Paraffin" or "NAA" anywhere on my website devoted to "Oswald's Guilt: Point By Point", which is sort of my own personal version of Vincent Bugliosi's "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt [53 Things]" chapter, where I list a bunch of things that, IMO, do indeed lead toward LHO's guilt (when totalled together and not isolated, that is). ....

http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com

>
> > If you aren't satisfied with my responses....so be it. But I answered your inquiries as truthfully as I could.
>
>
> No David, you didn't. You lied about Guinn agreeing with Killion. Guinn's NAA tests showed quite clearly that Killion's tests were meaningless.
>

How so? Seven of Guinn's tests had the *exact same result* as the Killion test---NEGATIVE. Why can't you understand this? Why?

> YOU LIED ABOUT THAT... and continue to lie about it.
>
> Why are you so afraid to answer the questions that prove you a liar?
>
>
> > Have a wonderful happy day, Ben.
>
>
> I'm having a GREAT day... I'm doing what I set out to do - prove that there's no such thing as an honest & knowledgeable believer.
>
> Where are we now? Is this the fifth time you've refused to answer the two questions honestly?

Maybe I should count to 10 again.

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut... I've PROVEN otherwise in the Amazon forums...

Anytime, Anyplace... all you have to do is provide *YOUR* scenario, and I'll match it in both detail and citations to the evidence.

Quite the coward, aren't you "Bud?"

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 11:04:26 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 1:29:54 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 10:12:24 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 12:12:10 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > What did the WC attempt to prove with Killion's tests?
> > > > >
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > They merely wanted to confirm what they already knew was probably true -- i.e., that a paraffin (nitrate) test is completely unreliable and is of no value when trying to determine whether or not a person has recently fired a gun.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're lying again, David.
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you quote the question, and Cunningham's answer?
> > > >
> > > > You *DO* know precisely what I'm talking about, don't you?
> >
> >
> > David once again showed his amazing dishonesty and cowardice... by refusing to address this.
> >
>
> Why don't YOU just spell it all out for us, oh great Mr. Holmes? Please do. Because I want to hear what YOU think the evil WC was up to regarding the NAA & Paraffin tests.

Tut tut tut, David.

You'd merely whine that it was coming from a "mentally ill" patient, and ignore it.

This is why I force *YOU* to say it.

It demonstrates two things - that you're AFRAID of the evidence, and that on the rare times you do answer the question - YOU'RE PROVEN WRONG ON YOUR PRIOR STATEMENTS.

It's known as "schooling."

> > > > >And Killion's test did, indeed, prove the unreliability of the paraffin test, because Killion tested NEGATIVE on both of his hands and his cheek after firing Oswald's Carcano rifle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ben apparently wanted me to answer his question this way: The WC wanted to prove, via the Killion/FBI paraffin test, that Lee Harvey Oswald definitely fired a rifle on 11/22/63.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A shamefully stupid strawman.
> > > >
> > > > [nonsense related to strawman deleted..]
> > > >
> > > > So, what we have so far is an absolute LIE on David's part to the first question... on to the next:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > What did Guinn prove about Killion's test?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > He proved that the results of Killion's test were a perfect match to 87.5% of Guinn's own tests (i.e., 7 out of his 8 Paraffin/Nitrate tests came back with a NEGATIVE result).
> > > >
> > > > What a GUTLESS LIAR!!!
> > > >
> > > > I guess I'm just going to have to keep asking those two questions... because you've lied on both of them.
> > > >
> > > > This is the third time without an honest answer...
> > >
> > > I think that most "lurkers" here (if there are any at all) will agree with me when I say that I have been very patient with Ben's non-stop assault on me in recent days. And, relatively speaking, I've even been quite friendly and cordial toward the person named Ben who calls me a LIAR in every post he writes. I think everyone would agree that I *could* be a lot more hateful toward Ben if I chose to do so. And it would be totally warranted as well.
> >
> >
> > Tut tut tut, David... I'm PROVING you a liar in every post.
> >
>
> I still have a little patience left....thankfully. :-)

And this is, what, the SEVENTH time that you've refused to honestly answer the two questions...

What a TREMENDOUSLY yellow coward you are, David.

Tell us, is your mother ashamed of you yet?

> > And YOU ARE REFUSING TO DEFEND YOURSELF...
> >
> > It would be incredibly easy, were you telling the truth, to simply cite the relevant evidence & testimony that supports what you're saying...
> >
> > But you can't do it.
> >
> > Which PROVES who's telling the truth, doesn't it David?
> >
> > WHAT WAS THE RELEVANT QUESTION DIRECTED AT CUNNINGHAM - AND WHAT WAS HIS ANSWER?
> >
> > And how does that prove that you're lying about the Warren Commission's understanding of Killion's tests?
> >
>
> Again, spell it out for us weak-minded "liars", Ben.

Nope. You'd merely whine about a statement coming from a "mentally ill" patient.

It's far more fun to watch you squirm and illustrate your cowardice.

> Cunningham's quote on Page 561 of the WCR says that he would not expect to see a positive result on a person's cheek after firing a rifle.

I asked you to provide the question, and then Cunningham's answer.

Your cowardice is once again on display.

But here we have THE PROOF THAT YOU WERE LYING.

The Warren Commission was INDEED attempting to eliminate the negative results of the NAA by burying them, and using the paraffin tests to negate the far more accurate NAA.

They knew they had to explain the negative paraffin tests - SO THEY PUT ON THE RECORD THAT AN EXPERT "WOULD NOT EXPECT TO SEE A POSITIVE RESULT".

But you know that simply isn't the truth, is it?

STATE IT PUBLICLY, DAVID - THAT IT'S SIMPLY UNTRUE THAT ANY EXPERT WOULD EXPECT THE NAA TESTS TO HAVE A NEGATIVE RESULT WHEN SOMEONE WAS KNOWN TO HAVE FIRED A RIFLE.

You won't, of course - you're quite the dishonest coward.

>And the WC, just before quoting Cunningham, specifically says "NITRATES" would not be expected to show up after firing a rifle (as opposed to other elements, via an NAA test, which is different).

Then all you have to do is explain why the Warren Commission - WHICH YOU CLAIMED WAS HONEST - buried the far more accurate NAA tests...

You'll run again, of course.

> I don't see anything wrong with Page 561 of the WR. But you obviously see a lot of obfuscation and lying there. Right, Ben? (But, then too, CTers always do "see" a lot of lying everywhere.)

You can't seem to defend the Warren Commission... can you?

> [Let the "You're lying again, David" comments commence.]

Let's see you defend yourself from the credible charges of lying.

Oops... you never do!!!

Why is that, David? WHY DO YOU NEVER DEFEND YOURSELF WHEN I CHARGE YOU WITH LYING?

> > You've also refused to defend the Warren Commission's total lack of honesty in burying Guinn's tests...

Dead silence...

> > > But patience does have a tendency to wear thin.
> >
> >
> > I predicted it. Soon you'll simply refuse to answer at all - because there comes a point when your lies simply overwhelm you.
> >
>
> Maybe I should try counting to ten. That sometimes helps people tolerate the untolerable.

I could care less what you do.

I merely point out the truth.

I enjoy the fact that you help me so much in my quest to prove all knowledgeable believers liars.

> > > Especially with someone like Ben, who obviously has no capacity for properly evaluating ANYTHING relating to the JFK case. (He and Jim DiEugenio must have gone to the same Conspiracy School in California or something.)
> >
> > If I can't "properly evaluate" - what does that say about you? WHO RUNS AWAY EVERY SINGLE TIME I POST THE QUESTION THAT SHOWS YOU A LIAR?
> >
> > If I were unable to "properly evaluate" the evidence, then YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CORRECT ME...
> >
> > Instead, you run away.

Dead silence...

> > Now tell us about Cunningham... or run like the yellow coward you are again...
> >
> >
> > > I answered your two questions as best I could. And I cited Page 561 of the WCR to bolster my argument, to prove that the Warren Commission did NOT use the paraffin or NAA tests to try and prove LHO's guilt. (That's just a FACT.)
> >
> > I asked you to quote Cunningham - and you refused.
> >
> > It's truly amazing how often you refuse to answer the very questions that, if given an honest answer, would prove you a liar.
> >
> > The Warren Commission knew that the tests showed Oswald's innocence, so they used Killion to obviate it... and buried Guinn.
> >
> > YOU KNOW THIS - yet you're willing to lie about it.
> >
>
> How do the NAA cheeks tests show "Oswald's innocence"? How?

Tut tut tut, David.

You're presuming that they show his guilt, then demanding that I counter it.

Tell us David, how much barium & antimony was on the OUTSIDE of the cast, in comparison to how much was inside?

Now, I know that you'll refuse to answer, and perhaps I'll have to ramp up my game to force you to answer...

>Please tell me. Because I don't think they show that at all. But, as I've said many times recently, I don't think the NAA or Paraffin tests necessarily show Oswald's GUILT either.

Nope, they show his innocence.

A fact that you just DESPISE...

> I agree with the WC on Page 561 --- such tests are not reliable in trying to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE whether or not a person has recently fired a gun.

YOU'RE LYING AGAIN, DAVID!!!

You cannot cite ANYTHING AT ALL that would show that the NAA is not completely conclusive in this regard.

What did Guinn's tests show?

AS A PERCENTAGE - HOW MANY TIMES DID THE NAA TEST SHOW A POSITIVE WHEN IT WAS KNOWN THAT THE PERSON *HAD* FIRED A RIFLE?

Again, you'll run like the wimp you are...

> And THAT'S really the bottom line of this discussion -- the RELIABILITY of the Paraffin and NAA tests.

YOU'RE A GUTLESS LYING SLIME WHO MOLESTS SMALL CHILDREN!!!

And you'll get an apology from me when you can document the NAA test as unreliable.

> And if you're going to retort with -- Well, Dave, you KNOW the NAA tests ARE very reliable, don't you? ....

Indeed they are. You're lying.

> My response will always be: Well, Ben, then why don't you want to accept the results of Oswald's NAA cheek test from '63? It was certainly not NEGATIVE as you want to believe. It showed the presence of BOTH elements that one would expect to find on a person's body if they had, indeed, fired a rifle or a revolver.

Untrue.

I've asked you repeatedly, simply cite where Gallagher stated that the test showed that Oswald had fired a rifle.

You've RUN EVERY SINGLE TIME.

> So I want to still know HOW you can think that such results can be used to EXONERATE Lee Oswald? How is that even possible with the presence of those elements on Oswald's face?*

Simple.

You just don't understand the evidence.

And what you *DO* understand, you lie about.

When you can explain the barium & antimony on the OUTSIDE of the cast, you'll be well on your way to some honesty.

But that will never happen...

> * Let me emphasize again that I think the NAA and Paraffin tests should NOT be used when forming a list of reasons to accept Oswald's guilt.

Since the NAA exonerates Oswald, your statement makes no sense.

You are, of course, doing exactly what Bugliosi did, presume Oswald's guilt, then twist all the evidence into support.

> > > If you aren't satisfied with my responses....so be it. But I answered your inquiries as truthfully as I could.
> >
> >
> > No David, you didn't. You lied about Guinn agreeing with Killion. Guinn's NAA tests showed quite clearly that Killion's tests were meaningless.
> >
>
> How so? Seven of Guinn's tests had the *exact same result* as the Killion test---NEGATIVE. Why can't you understand this? Why?

You're lying again, molester...

Until you start telling the truth, I'm going to keep mentioning your private email to me telling me about your perverted desires...

> > YOU LIED ABOUT THAT... and continue to lie about it.
> >
> > Why are you so afraid to answer the questions that prove you a liar?
> >
> >
> > > Have a wonderful happy day, Ben.
> >
> >
> > I'm having a GREAT day... I'm doing what I set out to do - prove that there's no such thing as an honest & knowledgeable believer.
> >
> > Where are we now? Is this the fifth time you've refused to answer the two questions honestly?
>
> Maybe I should count to 10 again.

Maybe you should start telling the truth.

What tests did Guinn conduct that CONTRADICTED Killion's results?

[Bud]

On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 2:31:40 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 10:54:55 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, February 24, 2017 at 10:02:32 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > David Von Pein:
> > > >My "case" isn't weak, Mr. Holmes. You've got to be clueless of the verified facts to say such a thing.
> > > >
> > > >Also....keep in mind that the hand and cheek paraffin casts of Oswald were WASHED prior to being subjected to the NAA analysis. And the washing of the casts, according to John Gallagher of the FBI, "will remove portions of the barium and antimony from these casts" [15 H 749]....
> > >
> > > This is a non sequitur...
> > >
> > > It presumes that the paraffin tests were positive, and the NAA tests were negative.
> > >
> > > But all of David's lying on the NAA will come to a screeching halt. Because he's either going to stop responding (which I predict), or he's going to honestly and correctly answer these two questions:
> > >
> > > What did the WC attempt to prove with Killion's tests?
> > >
> > > What did Guinn prove about Killion's test?
> > >
> > >
> > > P.S. I'd invite "Bud" to help David, but "Bud" simply doesn't know enough to answer these questions.
> >
> > I know enough about the way you argue that you are afraid to put your position out there with the evidence that backs it up.
>
> Tut tut tut... I've PROVEN otherwise in the Amazon forums...
>
> Anytime, Anyplace...

Right here, right now. Put your argument on the table regarding this NAA evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, "Bud."

[David Von Pein]

You're lying again, Ben. Oswald didn't come up NEGATIVE on the NAA cheek cast. It was POSITIVE (i.e., there was barium AND antimony present on the casts). That's just a fact. But in the hands of a rabid ABO CTer like Ben Holmes, that presence of BOTH elements that were tested for becomes a NEGATIVE test result. Incredible denial by Holmes.

> They knew they had to explain the negative paraffin tests - SO THEY PUT ON THE RECORD THAT AN EXPERT "WOULD NOT EXPECT TO SEE A POSITIVE RESULT".
>
> But you know that simply isn't the truth, is it?
>
> STATE IT PUBLICLY, DAVID - THAT IT'S SIMPLY UNTRUE THAT ANY EXPERT WOULD EXPECT THE NAA TESTS TO HAVE A NEGATIVE RESULT WHEN SOMEONE WAS KNOWN TO HAVE FIRED A RIFLE.
>

But Cunningham wasn't talking about "NAA" (barium/antimony) results when he said what he said. He was definitely talking about NITRATES. The question was posed as a question about the "PARAFFIN" test by the WC (that means NITRATES, a different test from the NAA)....

Mr. EISENBERG. A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you expect to find residues on a person who has fired a revolver such as Commission Exhibit 143?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There again, by its design, you would expect to find some thing, although there are cases where you won't find it.

> You won't, of course - you're quite the dishonest coward.
>
>
> >And the WC, just before quoting Cunningham, specifically says "NITRATES" would not be expected to show up after firing a rifle (as opposed to other elements, via an NAA test, which is different).
>
> Then all you have to do is explain why the Warren Commission - WHICH YOU CLAIMED WAS HONEST - buried the far more accurate NAA tests...
>
> You'll run again, of course.
>
>
> > I don't see anything wrong with Page 561 of the WR. But you obviously see a lot of obfuscation and lying there. Right, Ben? (But, then too, CTers always do "see" a lot of lying everywhere.)
>
>
> You can't seem to defend the Warren Commission... can you?
>
>
>
> > [Let the "You're lying again, David" comments commence.]
>
>
> Let's see you defend yourself from the credible charges of lying.
>
> Oops... you never do!!!
>
> Why is that, David? WHY DO YOU NEVER DEFEND YOURSELF WHEN I CHARGE YOU WITH LYING?
>
>
> > > You've also refused to defend the Warren Commission's total lack of honesty in burying Guinn's tests...
>
>
> Dead silence...
>
>
> > > > But patience does have a tendency to wear thin.
> > >
> > >
> > > I predicted it. Soon you'll simply refuse to answer at all - because there comes a point when your lies simply overwhelm you.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I should try counting to ten. That sometimes helps people tolerate the untolerable.
>
>
> I could care less what you do.
>

You really meant to say "I COULDN'T care less..."

Ben rarely gets anything correct.

> I merely point out the truth.
>

In the eyes of an Anybody-But-Oswald Rabid CT Clown, that is. Let's always make that distinction crystal clear for the viewers.

> I enjoy the fact that you help me so much in my quest to prove all knowledgeable believers liars.
>
>
> > > > Especially with someone like Ben, who obviously has no capacity for properly evaluating ANYTHING relating to the JFK case. (He and Jim DiEugenio must have gone to the same Conspiracy School in California or something.)
> > >
> > > If I can't "properly evaluate" - what does that say about you? WHO RUNS AWAY EVERY SINGLE TIME I POST THE QUESTION THAT SHOWS YOU A LIAR?
> > >
> > > If I were unable to "properly evaluate" the evidence, then YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CORRECT ME...
> > >
> > > Instead, you run away.
>
>
> Dead silence...
>
>
>
> > > Now tell us about Cunningham... or run like the yellow coward you are again...
> > >
> > >
> > > > I answered your two questions as best I could. And I cited Page 561 of the WCR to bolster my argument, to prove that the Warren Commission did NOT use the paraffin or NAA tests to try and prove LHO's guilt. (That's just a FACT.)
> > >
> > > I asked you to quote Cunningham - and you refused.
> > >
> > > It's truly amazing how often you refuse to answer the very questions that, if given an honest answer, would prove you a liar.
> > >
> > > The Warren Commission knew that the tests showed Oswald's innocence, so they used Killion to obviate it... and buried Guinn.
> > >
> > > YOU KNOW THIS - yet you're willing to lie about it.
> > >
> >
> > How do the NAA cheeks tests show "Oswald's innocence"? How?
>
>
> Tut tut tut, David.
>
> You're presuming that they show his guilt, then demanding that I counter it.
>
> Tell us David, how much barium & antimony was on the OUTSIDE of the cast, in comparison to how much was inside?
>

I suppose you want to totally ignore the fact thaty those casts were WASHED before the NAA test was even conducted, right?

What would you expect if the casts were washed first? Would you expect MORE or LESS deposits to be present?

And the possibility of Oswald washing his face in the Texas Theater and/or just merely wiping his cheek with his sleeve at some point in time after the assassination is a distinct possibility as well. But CTers never consider those things. Do you, Ben?

> Now, I know that you'll refuse to answer, and perhaps I'll have to ramp up my game to force you to answer...
>
>
> >Please tell me. Because I don't think they show that at all. But, as I've said many times recently, I don't think the NAA or Paraffin tests necessarily show Oswald's GUILT either.
>
>
> Nope, they show his innocence.
>
> A fact that you just DESPISE...
>
>
> > I agree with the WC on Page 561 --- such tests are not reliable in trying to CONCLUSIVELY PROVE whether or not a person has recently fired a gun.
>
>
> YOU'RE LYING AGAIN, DAVID!!!
>
> You cannot cite ANYTHING AT ALL that would show that the NAA is not completely conclusive in this regard.
>

Which means the NAA has proven Oswald guilty (by your way of thinking about the NAA), since all reasonable people know that Oswald's cheek NAA test was POSITIVE, not NEGATIVE.

Live with it. (And choke on it, you scum.)

> What did Guinn's tests show?
>
> AS A PERCENTAGE - HOW MANY TIMES DID THE NAA TEST SHOW A POSITIVE WHEN IT WAS KNOWN THAT THE PERSON *HAD* FIRED A RIFLE?
>
> Again, you'll run like the wimp you are...
>
>
> > And THAT'S really the bottom line of this discussion -- the RELIABILITY of the Paraffin and NAA tests.
>
>
> YOU'RE A GUTLESS LYING SLIME WHO MOLESTS SMALL CHILDREN!!!
>
> And you'll get an apology from me when you can document the NAA test as unreliable.
>

It's just as unreliable as the Paraffin/Nitrate test in determining whether somebody POSITIVELY fired a gun --- and that's because, just like the Paraffin test, a subject can show a positive reaction to the test due to touching many other things. It's not as likely for the barium & antimony to adhere to the skin after touching those common items, but the FBI's Gallagher definitely said that many household items DO have barium and antimony in them. Which means you can't rule those items out as being the cause of a positive test reaction.

So choke on that fact for a while too.

>
> > And if you're going to retort with -- Well, Dave, you KNOW the NAA tests ARE very reliable, don't you? ....
>
>
> Indeed they are. You're lying.
>
>
>
> > My response will always be: Well, Ben, then why don't you want to accept the results of Oswald's NAA cheek test from '63? It was certainly not NEGATIVE as you want to believe. It showed the presence of BOTH elements that one would expect to find on a person's body if they had, indeed, fired a rifle or a revolver.
>
> Untrue.
>
> I've asked you repeatedly, simply cite where Gallagher stated that the test showed that Oswald had fired a rifle.
>
> You've RUN EVERY SINGLE TIME.
>
>
> > So I want to still know HOW you can think that such results can be used to EXONERATE Lee Oswald? How is that even possible with the presence of those elements on Oswald's face?*
>
> Simple.
>
> You just don't understand the evidence.
>
> And what you *DO* understand, you lie about.
>
> When you can explain the barium & antimony on the OUTSIDE of the cast, you'll be well on your way to some honesty.
>
> But that will never happen...
>
> > * Let me emphasize again that I think the NAA and Paraffin tests should NOT be used when forming a list of reasons to accept Oswald's guilt.
>
> Since the NAA exonerates Oswald, your statement makes no sense.
>
> You are, of course, doing exactly what Bugliosi did, presume Oswald's guilt, then twist all the evidence into support.
>

Full Irony Alert!!

(Somebody sound the Pot/Kettle alarm!)

>
>
> > > > If you aren't satisfied with my responses....so be it. But I answered your inquiries as truthfully as I could.
> > >
> > >
> > > No David, you didn't. You lied about Guinn agreeing with Killion. Guinn's NAA tests showed quite clearly that Killion's tests were meaningless.
> > >
> >
> > How so? Seven of Guinn's tests had the *exact same result* as the Killion test---NEGATIVE. Why can't you understand this? Why?
>
>
> You're lying again, molester...
>
> Until you start telling the truth, I'm going to keep mentioning your private email to me telling me about your perverted desires...
>

You mean the email I never sent in the first place? The one you either invented or the one that was sent by some other worthless slimeball similar to yourself who was posing as me and only wanted to spread false information about me? Is that the email you mean?

[Ben Holmes]

Do you really expect people to take the word of a proven liar & child molester?

Cite expert testimony that states that the results found in the NAA test showed that Oswald fired a rifle.

This is the tenth time you've run from honestly answering the two questions that prove you a liar.

Of course, liars lie, that's what liars do...

[David Von Pein]

Similarly, the POSITIVE paraffin result on Oswald's hands doesn't prove he fired any type of gun either. It might be "indicative" of having handled a fired weapon, but it certainly doesn't PROVE he fired any gun at all; and the WC knew this to be true. That's why they were so honest and forthright when they said JUST THAT on pages 561 and 562 of their final report.

Ergo, a POSITIVE paraffin/nitrate result on Oswald (on his hands) was not used by the WC to "prove" Oswald was guilty. But the results of the paraffin test on LHO's hands were still considered "Positive", weren't they?

Same with the NAA cheek test --- POSITIVE results, but no declaration of that POSITIVE result equating to "Oswald Fired A Gun".

It's the EXACT same thing. You're just too stupid to realize it (or admit it). And that's because you've got your own "Ben Holmes CT Rule Book" that you abide by. And to hell with any reasonable interpretation of things. Ben's got his book. And he's sticking with it. Right, Ben?

[Ben Holmes]

> Similarly...

Nope... no citation.

You're making a claim that you can't support.

Support your claim, or PUBLICLY STATE THAT YOU'RE MAKING A CLAIM THAT CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE TESTIMONY.

That would be the honest thing to do...

Which is why I don't expect you to do so...

[Ben Holmes]

P.S. That's now Eleven times you've posted without answering the two questions...

Your amazing cowardice is on record for everyone to observe...

[David Von Pein]

LOL.

I proved my point very clearly in my last post. The POSITIVE paraffin test on Oswald's hands was NOT used to try and support Oswald's guilt. And page 561 of the WCR proves that fact. Just as the POSITIVE result on LHO's NAA cheek cast was NOT used by the WC to try and support LHO's guilt either.

That's an identical situation. So how can I *possibly* "cite expert testimony that states that the results found in the NAA test showed that Oswald fired a rifle"?

But Ben has his rules. And to hell with CS&L*. Right, Ben?

* Common Sense & Logic.

[Ben Holmes]

You're making a claim that you can't support. And expecting people who know you to be a thoroughly dishonest liar to believe what you say without any citation.

[David Von Pein]

http://static.skaip.org/img/emoticons/180x180/f6fcff/headbang.gif

[David Von Pein]

IRONY & POT/KETTLE ALERTS!!

[Ben Holmes]

Still no citation.

Tell us David, why would you expect people to believe your assertion when you've been PROVABLY caught lying time and time again?

[Ben Holmes]

This makes it thirteen times that David has refused to offer an honest answer to the two questions I asked:

What did the WC attempt to prove with Killion's tests?

What did Guinn prove about Killion's test?

David apparently thinks that Guinn only did paraffin tests - and that Cunningham had nothing to do with showing what the Warren Commission meant to show with Killion's testimony.

David Von Pein is a despicable liar...

But, of course, *ALL* knowledgeable believers are... there's not a *SINGLE* knowledgeable believer that cannot be shown, BY CITATION TO THE EVIDENCE; to be a liar.

And David certainly cannot offer the name of any such person...

[Bud]

Stop your dancing and go somewhere with this evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

Yes David... stop your dancing...

GIVE US A CITATION!!!