WC Dishonesty
Ben Holmes
I've long been aware of the fact that when a paraffin test was done on
LHO, he was positive on his hands, and negative on his face. Being
positive for nitrates can have sources other than firing a gun... such
as soap, or ink on books and cartons that LHO handled routinely.
The fact that LHO was negative on the face would square with him
firing a pistol, but NOT square with him firing a rifle. The way the
WC dealt with this was to simply bring forth testimony on how
unreliable the paraffin test was, and that one would not expect a
positive paraffin test on the cheek from a rifle:
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.
Then I ran across this interesting bit of information:
"These records [released to Weisberg as a result of an FOIA lawsuit]
included the results of a number of test firings with that rifle and
the paraffin tests made on those who fired it. The test firings left
heavy deposits on all the shooters' faces, quite the opposite of what
the paraffin tests of Oswalds' face disclosed." (Never Again! by
Weisberg pg 337)
Since they didn't support the WC theory, these tests never made it
into the WCR or the 26 volumes. Seems just a tad dishonest to
completely hide testing that doesn't support your theory, right?
And, it would seem that the WC expert, Mr. Cunningham, is not quite
the expert he appeared to be, nor was he familiar with *all* the
paraffin tests done...
O.H. LEE
Ben, correct me if I am interpreting this data wrong. But this paraffin testing
was done with Oswald's Carcano? The alleged murder weapon? And there were
indeed heavy nitrate deposits left on the shooters' faces? And yet we have
Oswald testing negative on his cheek for these same nitrates? Well, once
again, it appears, the research community owes quite a debt to Mr. Weisberg.
Thank you sir.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
Ben Holmes
Unfortunately, other than using the phrase "with that rifle" (which,
certainly wouldn't be an appropriate use if it was *other* than the
MC), Weisberg doesn't more clearly state this. But I'd be surprised
if they would do tests involving firing a rifle, and checking paraffin
results if it *weren't* the very same MC. It would tend to refute any
evidence they gathered that way, wouldn't it?
I think it might prove interesting to dig up this information, since
Weisberg *also* didn't clarify the *number* of shooters involved, nor
the number of shots. I'd be surprised if it were more than 3 shots
each, but the number of shooting tests would be interesting. For
example, if it were just two people, that would be interesting, but
hardly conclusive. But if they had 10 people firing, and they *all*
tested positive for nitrates, that would be very interesting indeed!
And yes, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the late Mr. Weisberg... he
was a most meticulous researcher, and it's most difficult to find any
fault with his research. He gathered much material via his FOIA
lawsuits that otherwise may never have seen the light of day.
Speaking of which, this is one subject that simply has no reasonable
answer... if the government has nothing to hide, why do they hide so
much?
This alone demonstrates that whatever the WC and HSCA says about the
NAA, it can't possibly be in favor of their theory. It took a lawsuit
to force it's release!!
Anthony Marsh
Supposedly with Oswald's Carcano. But I don't think it would make that
much difference if they used another similar rifle. Of course the ammo must
be from the same manufacture. It might be theoretically possible today to
retest the casts and see if the deposits match up with the M-C or the
revolver.
> indeed heavy nitrate deposits left on the shooters' faces? And yet we have
> Oswald testing negative on his cheek for these same nitrates? Well, once
> again, it appears, the research community owes quite a debt to Mr. Weisberg.
> Thank you sir.
>
It is important and interesting, but it does not ipso factor prove Oswald's
innocence.
Ben Holmes
says...
It does, however, support the charge I made with the title of this post, WC
Dishonesty. They *had* this information, they completely covered it up.
And *that* unfortunate fact, expecially in combination with all the other
inconvenient facts that were covered up and not investigated, is supportive of
LHO's innocence.
Martin Shackelford
the time he reported seeing Oswald in his testimony transvript was
changed by the time the testimony was published in the 26 volumes.
Martin
Jean Davison
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:j6gshugg2sngvc45k...@4ax.com...
Ben, did Weisberg reproduce these reports? Could
you give me a quote?
>
> Since they didn't support the WC theory, these tests never made it
> into the WCR or the 26 volumes. Seems just a tad dishonest to
> completely hide testing that doesn't support your theory, right?
I'm not sure yet that they did that.
>
> And, it would seem that the WC expert, Mr. Cunningham, is not quite
> the expert he appeared to be, nor was he familiar with *all* the
> paraffin tests done...
Cunningham testified about other paraffin tests. The tests
of Oswald's pistol produced positive results on the *hands* of all
"those who fired it" -- Frazier, Killion and Cunningham. [III, 487]
Could these be the results Weisberg was thinking of?
QUOTE:
>>
Now, recently in connection with the assassination we made
casts--the three of us, Special Agents Frazier, Killion, and
myself, for neutron-activation. However, two of the casts
we treated with diphenylbenzidine [i.e., a "paraffin test"]
We obtained a cast of the left hand after firing this particular
revolver four times and reloading. We obtained a cast of
the right hand after firing that revolver four times, and reloading.
We treated both casts, fronts and backs with diphenylbenzidine.
This particular one was run on me. I washed my hands thoroughly
with green soap--and the green soap, by the way, did not react
because we checked it--the gauze used and the paraffin were all
checked, to see if they would react, and they did not. We found
numerous, numerous reactions on the casts of both hands. And I
did not fire a weapon with my left hand. However, as I previously
showed you, when I demonstrated how you ejected cartridge cases,
all of those residues showed up, as well as, I am sure, other foreign
material that the paraffin removed from my hands. And there were
reactions on both hands, fronts and backs.
Now, theoretically, you should not find them on the backs over
here, because I had my left hand behind me, and you would find
it on the palm. We found reactions everywhere on the casts.
<<< [III, 487]
Cunningham also said that a test of the M-C produced
negative results, but this weapon was evidently fired
by only one person -- Killion:
QUOTE:
.. Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit,
with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder
residue on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were
interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility
was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly
washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his
hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and
he had not fired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle.
We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly,
using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination.
We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This
time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle
rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the
hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him.
He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would
not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't
pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When
we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On
the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any further questions on the paraffin test?
Representative FORD. Based on your testimony this morning, and what
you have told us in the last few minutes, why are paraffin tests conducted
and how extensively are they?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Many local law-enforcement agencies do conduct
these tests, and at their request the FBI will process them. They take the
cast and we will process them.
However, in reporting, we give them qualified results, since we frequently
will get some reaction. Numerous reactions or a few reactions will be found
on the casts. However, in no way does this indicate that a person has recently
fired a weapon. <<<
[III, 494]
UNQUOTE
Jean
Ben Holmes
Nope... he didn't quote these reports in the book I have... He states
that as a result of CA 75-226, an FOIA lawsuit, the ERDA (Energy and
Research and Development Administration), the successor to the Atomic
Energy Commission - handed these documents over. They *may* be in
another book of Weisberg's: Postmortem (I don't have that book).
>> Since they didn't support the WC theory, these tests never made it
>> into the WCR or the 26 volumes. Seems just a tad dishonest to
>> completely hide testing that doesn't support your theory, right?
>
> I'm not sure yet that they did that.
Depends on how many test shooters there were... if only two, it may or
may not prove anything... if there were 10 of them, I'd say that
demonstrates something fairly conclusively.
These tests were in *contradiction* to the WC testimony of Mr.
Cunningham. And the WC obviously knew this, since they were the ones
who commissioned the testing.
>> And, it would seem that the WC expert, Mr. Cunningham, is not quite
>> the expert he appeared to be, nor was he familiar with *all* the
>> paraffin tests done...
>
> Cunningham testified about other paraffin tests. The tests
>of Oswald's pistol produced positive results on the *hands* of all
>"those who fired it" -- Frazier, Killion and Cunningham. [III, 487]
I think you'd better read Cunningham's testimony again if this is what
you thought you'd read.
>Could these be the results Weisberg was thinking of?
Nope. "The test firings left heavy deposits on all the shooters'
faces, quite the opposite of what the paraffin tests of Oswalds' face
disclosed."
>QUOTE:
So why would the WC hide the results that were contrary?
My reasoning is dishonesty on their part. I'm willing to hear any
other *reasonable* theory.
Anthony Marsh
But not a clear cut issue. The paraffin tests then were so unreliable as to
be useless. Just a bargaining chip.
> And *that* unfortunate fact, expecially in combination with all the other
> inconvenient facts that were covered up and not investigated, is supportive of
> LHO's innocence.
>
We know that the WC started with a preconceived conclusion. We also know that
various people tried to frame Oswald. But it is possible to frame a guilty
man, so those attempts do not prove the man innocent. You can believe that O.J.
Simpson is guilty, but that the police tried to plant evidence to cinch the case
against him.
John McAdams
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
I too am waiting to see these documents.
I wouldn't be surprised if you are correct, and the Weisberg claim,
filtered through Holmes is merely stuff readily available in the WC
volumes.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
Exactly as I pointed out above... I'm *not* focusing on whether LHO
is innocent or guilty - I personally believe that the evidence shows
him to be innocent. What I'm focusing on here is evident from the
title of the post... the demonstration that the WC purposely with-held
information from tests that *they* had sponsored, because of what
those tests showed.
Who *cares* whether paraffin tests are reliable or not... the WC, by
their withholding of this information - *demonstrated* their belief in
the reliability of these tests.
>> And *that* unfortunate fact, expecially in combination with all the other
>> inconvenient facts that were covered up and not investigated, is supportive of
>> LHO's innocence.
>>
>
>We know that the WC started with a preconceived conclusion. We also know that
>various people tried to frame Oswald. But it is possible to frame a guilty
>man, so those attempts do not prove the man innocent. You can believe that O.J.
>Simpson is guilty, but that the police tried to plant evidence to cinch the case
>against him.
As I pointed out above, my object isn't to discuss LHO's innocence or
guilt... only to show that the WC was dishonest in their handling of
the evidence that they had.
Jean Davison
Aha, I think I see now what happened here.
The fact that the documents came from the ERDA
indicates that they deal with the results of the neutron activation
tests done at Oak Ridge and NOT with the paraffin tests done
by the DPD. Although the paraffin test on Oswald's cheek was negative
for nitrates, the NA test on the same cast was *positive* for barium and
antimony, two elements found in bullet primer. [see WR, 562 : "The paraffin casts of
Oswald's hand and right cheek were also examined by neutron-
activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium
and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the
casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridges and revolver
cartridge cases. ...." and Gallagher's testimony, XV, beginning at 746]
Thus it's very possible that face casts made of someone who fired
Oswald's rifle would *also* test positive for barium and antimony.
This is in no way a contradiction of the WR statement that rifle
tests showed negative results for *nitrates* on the cheek. Different
tests, different results. Weisberg said "heavy deposits" were left
on the shooters' faces, but heavy deposits of WHAT? Too bad he didn't say,
but since the papers came from the ERDA, I assume he must be talking about
the elements Oak Ridge tested for -- barium and antimony. If so, there's
no WC dishonesty here.
>
> >> Since they didn't support the WC theory, these tests never made it
> >> into the WCR or the 26 volumes. Seems just a tad dishonest to
> >> completely hide testing that doesn't support your theory, right?
> >
> > I'm not sure yet that they did that.
>
> Depends on how many test shooters there were... if only two, it may or
> may not prove anything... if there were 10 of them, I'd say that
> demonstrates something fairly conclusively.
>
> These tests were in *contradiction* to the WC testimony of Mr.
> Cunningham. And the WC obviously knew this, since they were the ones
> who commissioned the testing.
>
> >> And, it would seem that the WC expert, Mr. Cunningham, is not quite
> >> the expert he appeared to be, nor was he familiar with *all* the
> >> paraffin tests done...
> >
> > Cunningham testified about other paraffin tests. The tests
> >of Oswald's pistol produced positive results on the *hands* of all
> >"those who fired it" -- Frazier, Killion and Cunningham. [III, 487]
>
> I think you'd better read Cunningham's testimony again if this is what
> you thought you'd read.
Maybe I misread, then, I dunno. That's kind of my point--
people do sometimes misunderstand what they read, and that
includes Weisberg. Jean
Ben Holmes
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
Oh? Isn't this a tad disingenious? I seem to recall that the
*outside* of the paraffin tested *higher* for barium than the
inside... you call this a "positive" test???
Mr. REDLICH. All right. Now let us turn to the cheek casts, Mr.
Gallagher. Could you tell us the results of your examination of the
cheek casts with reference to the presence of the elements barium and
antimony?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Barium and antimony were found on the cheek casts.
However, when the cheek cast was analyzed, both surfaces of the cheek
cast were studied. That is, the surface adjacent to the skin of the
subject and the surface away from the skin of the subject, or the
outside surface of the cast.
Mr. REDLICH. For our record, let us call the surface adjacent to the
skin the inside surface, and the other surface the outside surface.
Mr. GALLAGHER. The outside surface of this cast was found to
contain--barium and antimony--actually more barium was found on the
outside surface of the cast than on the inside surface.
Mr. REDLICH. And as far as antimony is concerned, was there more on
the outside than on the inside ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. There was slightly less antimony on the outside of the
cast than on the inside of the cast.
Mr. REDLICH. Do you have any explanation for the presence of barium
and antimony on the outside of the cast, and as part of the same
question, do you have any explanation for their being more barium on
the outside than the inside ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I have no explanation for this difference.
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.
(Notice that he was unwilling to state that this was due to firing a
rifle)
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.
> [see WR, 562 : "The paraffin casts of
>Oswald's hand and right cheek were also examined by neutron-
>activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium
>and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the
>casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridges and revolver
>cartridge cases. ...." and Gallagher's testimony, XV, beginning at 746]
>
> Thus it's very possible that face casts made of someone who fired
>Oswald's rifle would *also* test positive for barium and antimony.
Again, if LHO didn't test positive, then the fact that others *did*,
even if it's barium and antimony, rather than nitrates, says alot.
And this was covered up by the WC.
It took an FOIA lawsuit to get the data on these tests. Care to
explain the "national security" implications involved here?
>This is in no way a contradiction of the WR statement that rifle
>tests showed negative results for *nitrates* on the cheek. Different
>tests, different results. Weisberg said "heavy deposits" were left
>on the shooters' faces, but heavy deposits of WHAT? Too bad he didn't say,
>but since the papers came from the ERDA, I assume he must be talking about
>the elements Oak Ridge tested for -- barium and antimony. If so, there's
>no WC dishonesty here.
Sure there is. LHO *did not* have the "heavy deposits", regardless of
whether it was barium and antimony or nitrates. The test shooters
*did*. It took a lawsuit to force this information out.
All you've done is shift the possibilities here... instead of
nitrates, it's possible that we are discussing barium and antimony.
And the situation is IDENTICAL regardless of which chemical we are
talking about... except that it no longer demonstrates a lack of
knowledge on Cunningham's part.
Why does the government continue to hide data such as this?
>> >> Since they didn't support the WC theory, these tests never made it
>> >> into the WCR or the 26 volumes. Seems just a tad dishonest to
>> >> completely hide testing that doesn't support your theory, right?
>> >
>> > I'm not sure yet that they did that.
>>
>> Depends on how many test shooters there were... if only two, it may or
>> may not prove anything... if there were 10 of them, I'd say that
>> demonstrates something fairly conclusively.
>>
>> These tests were in *contradiction* to the WC testimony of Mr.
>> Cunningham. And the WC obviously knew this, since they were the ones
>> who commissioned the testing.
>>
>> >> And, it would seem that the WC expert, Mr. Cunningham, is not quite
>> >> the expert he appeared to be, nor was he familiar with *all* the
>> >> paraffin tests done...
>> >
>> > Cunningham testified about other paraffin tests. The tests
>> >of Oswald's pistol produced positive results on the *hands* of all
>> >"those who fired it" -- Frazier, Killion and Cunningham. [III, 487]
>>
>> I think you'd better read Cunningham's testimony again if this is what
>> you thought you'd read.
>
> Maybe I misread, then, I dunno. That's kind of my point--
>people do sometimes misunderstand what they read, and that
>includes Weisberg. Jean
You've not demonstrated any misunderstanding on Weisberg's part. It's
certainly probable that he misunderstood something somewhere, but this
ain't it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has the FBI performed an experiment to determine this?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; we have. The early sets of tests we ran with
diphenylamine. And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired
five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the
hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin
casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A TOTAL OF
EIGHT MEN SHOWED NEGATIVE OR ESSENTIALLY NEGATIVE RESULTS ON BOTH
HANDS. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand,
but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on
their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four
men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their
right hands. That was the first test we ran.
Jean Davison
For Pete's sake, Ben, I'm not arguing that the NA
test proved that Oswald fired a rifle, I'm saying that his
face cast was *positive* for *barium and antimony*.
The question was, Is barium and antimony present, and
the answer was "yes"; therefore, the test result was *positive*
for barium and antimony. The WC didn't regard this test
as evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day and neither
do I. I'm only saying that Weisberg may've gotten the
results of these two different tests mixed up. The DPD
did the traditional paraffin test and found no nitrates on
Oswald's cheek cast (negative result). The FBI had an
agent fire the M-C twice and also got no nitrates on
the face (negative result) -- and this is what the WC reported.
But when the same Oswald face cast was sent to the FBI
and checked for barium and antimony the results were positive
-- the two elements were THERE. What that actually *means*
is another matter.
If Weisberg wasn't quoting the results of
a neutron activation test, rather than a paraffin test
as he claimed, then why did he have to sue the
ERDA to get them? Why would the ERDA have
control over tests done by the Dallas PD?
Now, below you're quoting Gallagher's testimony,
which is fine, but I have no disagreement with Gallagher.
I'm the one who just now directed you to his testimony.
>>
Yep. No quarrel from me.
>
> 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.
>
> > [see WR, 562 : "The paraffin casts of
> >Oswald's hand and right cheek were also examined by neutron-
> >activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium
> >and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the
> >casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridges and revolver
> >cartridge cases. ...." and Gallagher's testimony, XV, beginning at 746]
> >
> > Thus it's very possible that face casts made of someone who fired
> >Oswald's rifle would *also* test positive for barium and antimony.
>
> Again, if LHO didn't test positive, then the fact that others *did*,
> even if it's barium and antimony, rather than nitrates, says alot.
> And this was covered up by the WC.
No, LHO's cheek *did* "test positive" for barium and
antimony. You've posted Weisberg's opinion that the WC
covered up something. I'd like to see the evidence instead.
>
> It took an FOIA lawsuit to get the data on these tests. Care to
> explain the "national security" implications involved here?
I have no idea, but, respectfully -- so what? The gov'ment
often does things that seem silly or stupid. It seems to me that
CTs often assume that if something is unexplained
there is only ONE possible explanation -- a coverup. And yet,
after millions of pages of classified documents have been released,
how many of them really contained anything worth hiding?
>
> >This is in no way a contradiction of the WR statement that rifle
> >tests showed negative results for *nitrates* on the cheek. Different
> >tests, different results. Weisberg said "heavy deposits" were left
> >on the shooters' faces, but heavy deposits of WHAT? Too bad he didn't say,
> >but since the papers came from the ERDA, I assume he must be talking about
> >the elements Oak Ridge tested for -- barium and antimony. If so, there's
> >no WC dishonesty here.
>
> Sure there is. LHO *did not* have the "heavy deposits", regardless of
> whether it was barium and antimony or nitrates. The test shooters
> *did*. It took a lawsuit to force this information out.
If this information is really "out," I'd
like to see the original document, myself.
>
> All you've done is shift the possibilities here... instead of
> nitrates, it's possible that we are discussing barium and antimony.
> And the situation is IDENTICAL regardless of which chemical we are
> talking about... except that it no longer demonstrates a lack of
> knowledge on Cunningham's part.
I'm not sure what you mean about Cunningham,
but the two tests are certainly not "identical."
>
> Why does the government continue to hide data such as this?
How is the government continuing to hide it?
>
> >> >> Since they didn't support the WC theory, these tests never made it
> >> >> into the WCR or the 26 volumes. Seems just a tad dishonest to
> >> >> completely hide testing that doesn't support your theory, right?
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure yet that they did that.
> >>
> >> Depends on how many test shooters there were... if only two, it may or
> >> may not prove anything... if there were 10 of them, I'd say that
> >> demonstrates something fairly conclusively.
> >>
> >> These tests were in *contradiction* to the WC testimony of Mr.
> >> Cunningham. And the WC obviously knew this, since they were the ones
> >> who commissioned the testing.
> >>
> >> >> And, it would seem that the WC expert, Mr. Cunningham, is not quite
> >> >> the expert he appeared to be, nor was he familiar with *all* the
> >> >> paraffin tests done...
> >> >
> >> > Cunningham testified about other paraffin tests. The tests
> >> >of Oswald's pistol produced positive results on the *hands* of all
> >> >"those who fired it" -- Frazier, Killion and Cunningham. [III, 487]
> >>
> >> I think you'd better read Cunningham's testimony again if this is what
> >> you thought you'd read.
> >
> > Maybe I misread, then, I dunno. That's kind of my point--
> >people do sometimes misunderstand what they read, and that
> >includes Weisberg. Jean
>
> You've not demonstrated any misunderstanding on Weisberg's part. It's
> certainly probable that he misunderstood something somewhere, but this
> ain't it.
I don't see how you can be sure of that without
seeing the document. Why don't we both try to find a copy,
so that we can settle this question one way or the other?
Does anyone know where Weisberg's papers are now and
whether they're available to the public?
Jean
Ben Holmes
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
Read your previous sentence from the viewpoint of anyone who hasn't
dug into this particular issue. It would be *clear* to them that you
were stating that LHO tested "positive" on something related to
whether he'd fired a rifle.
He didn't.
I'm clearing up an implication that shouldn't be there.
>The question was, Is barium and antimony present, and
>the answer was "yes"; therefore, the test result was *positive*
>for barium and antimony.
But the test was NEGATIVE as far as an objective result.
Sorta like arsenic... I'm quite sure that I'd test "positive" for
arsenic in my body. It's NOT, on the other hand, the sort of positive
result that a prosecutor would take to the jury... I'm still alive,
with no poisoning symptoms, after all...
But saying that my body tested positive for arsenic would give a
misleading implication to those who didn't know that I'm in perfect
health, and alive...
>The WC didn't regard this test
>as evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day and neither
>do I.
Actually, as I previously pointed out, this is good supportive
evidence that he DIDN'T fire a rifle that day. This is, of course,
the major reason, IMO, that these test results were covered up.
>I'm only saying that Weisberg may've gotten the
>results of these two different tests mixed up. The DPD
>did the traditional paraffin test and found no nitrates on
>Oswald's cheek cast (negative result). The FBI had an
>agent fire the M-C twice and also got no nitrates on
>the face (negative result) -- and this is what the WC reported.
>But when the same Oswald face cast was sent to the FBI
>and checked for barium and antimony the results were positive
>-- the two elements were THERE. What that actually *means*
>is another matter.
What it MEANS is a negative result. The fact that Gallagher was
unwilling to commit to that answer means little.
> If Weisberg wasn't quoting the results of
>a neutron activation test, rather than a paraffin test
>as he claimed, then why did he have to sue the
>ERDA to get them? Why would the ERDA have
>control over tests done by the Dallas PD?
The tests *were* done by the ERDA. To quote from my citation above:
"I learned of this and much else about these tests (NAA) when ERDA,
which I had joined in the lawsuit, CA 75-226, anxious not to be
besmirched for noncooperation in the lawsuit that the Department of
Justice and the FBI controlled, decided to give me copies of its
records. They were delivered to my lawyer, Jim Lesar, at this home by
the assistant United States attorney for the District of Columbia who
represented the government in the lawsuit. These records included the
results of a number of test firings with that rifle and the paraffin
tests made on those who fired it. The test firings left heavy
deposits on all the shooters' faces, quite the opposite of what the
paraffin tests of Oswald's face disclosed. This of course, was even
more exculpatory.
FBI lab agent, John F. Gallagher, the spectrographer who did not
testify to any of his spectrographic examination sb eefore the Warren
Commission, handled the deal for the FBI. ... Gallagher supervised the
tests he arranged for at the ERDA installation at Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. They were performed by a government contractor already
working there."
> Now, below you're quoting Gallagher's testimony,
>which is fine, but I have no disagreement with Gallagher.
>I'm the one who just now directed you to his testimony.
Actually, I was already quite familiar with it. I quoted it to
counter your claim that the LHO paraffin cast tested positive for
barium and antimony.
No, it didn't. You are using the standard of "is there any amount
whatsoever", I'm using the standard, "is their a *significant*
amount." It was quite clear in the testimony above, for example that
there was MORE barium on the control surface than the surface
contacting LHO's cheek. THIS IS A NEGATIVE TEST!!
When you use the standard that you do, you give a false implication to
your words in the context of a discussion on the assassination.
>You've posted Weisberg's opinion that the WC
>covered up something. I'd like to see the evidence instead.
You are, of course, free to quote from these tests done by the ERDA at
the request of the WC. I'm sure you have access to the 26 volumes,
and will have no problems locating this *exculpatory* evidence.
>> It took an FOIA lawsuit to get the data on these tests. Care to
>> explain the "national security" implications involved here?
>
> I have no idea, but, respectfully -- so what? The gov'ment
>often does things that seem silly or stupid. It seems to me that
>CTs often assume that if something is unexplained
>there is only ONE possible explanation -- a coverup.
Always happy to entertain other reasons. These *are*, after all, only
people on the *other* side of these FOIA requests. Reasoning,
thinking people... who *don't* live in a sanitorium... they can be
expected to have a reason for the things they do.
> And yet,
>after millions of pages of classified documents have been released,
>how many of them really contained anything worth hiding?
Actually, quite a few... or haven't you been reading the take from the
ARRB?
For example, without an FOIA lawsuit of Weisberg's, we wouldn't have
the transcripts of the WC executive sessions, which detail many
interesting things from the viewpoint of a CT'er.
>> >This is in no way a contradiction of the WR statement that rifle
>> >tests showed negative results for *nitrates* on the cheek. Different
>> >tests, different results. Weisberg said "heavy deposits" were left
>> >on the shooters' faces, but heavy deposits of WHAT? Too bad he didn't say,
>> >but since the papers came from the ERDA, I assume he must be talking about
>> >the elements Oak Ridge tested for -- barium and antimony. If so, there's
>> >no WC dishonesty here.
>>
>> Sure there is. LHO *did not* have the "heavy deposits", regardless of
>> whether it was barium and antimony or nitrates. The test shooters
>> *did*. It took a lawsuit to force this information out.
>
> If this information is really "out," I'd
>like to see the original document, myself.
And so would I. But I also have a great deal of trust in Weisberg,
I've never caught him 'out' on a fact yet... unlike other authors, of
both CT and LN persuasion.
>> All you've done is shift the possibilities here... instead of
>> nitrates, it's possible that we are discussing barium and antimony.
>> And the situation is IDENTICAL regardless of which chemical we are
>> talking about... except that it no longer demonstrates a lack of
>> knowledge on Cunningham's part.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean about Cunningham,
>but the two tests are certainly not "identical."
Cunningham stated that he wouldn't expect a rifle to leave nitrates on
the face. He may possibly be correct - I'll reserve judgement until I
can see the documents from the ERDA.
And, yes, the tests ARE identical. They both look for the debris from
the firing of a handgun, or rifle.
One test looks for nitrates.
The other test looks for two particular elements.
If it can be demonstrated that LHO tested out in a manner *opposite*
to those who positively did fire the rifle, then the test can be
supportive of the theory that LHO did not fire a rifle.
>> Why does the government continue to hide data such as this?
>
> How is the government continuing to hide it?
In this *particular* situation, Weisberg got what he was attempting to
get... the NAA results. Are you under the impression that the
government is NOT continuing to hide other materials it holds on the
JFK case - that is not related to national security?
If you are... try locating the notes that Dr. Humes made during the
autopsy. Originals, or copies, either one... (This, of course, is
just one example...)
Good question.
Ben Holmes
answer on the wrong newsgroup... I'll answer it here...
On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 04:02:15 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
McAdams) wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 18:35:04 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org>
>wrote:
>Huh? It's your implication, not one the WC drew.
John jumped into this discussion rather late, and seems to have
difficulty following the thread. The 'implication' that is being
discussed was calling a test "positive" - which given the *reason* for
the testing would indicate to someone who didn't follow the actual
testimony very carefully - that someone had *fired* a rifle. This is
*the* implication being discussed. It was *not* my implication, it
followed from the way Jean mentioned a "positive" test. Finding
barium, for example, doesn't make it a "positive" test. Finding an
excessive amount of barium *would*.
The WC had nothing to do with this "implication" that Jean and I were
discussing.
>>>The question was, Is barium and antimony present, and
>>>the answer was "yes"; therefore, the test result was *positive*
>>>for barium and antimony.
>>
>>But the test was NEGATIVE as far as an objective result.
>>
>
>No, the positive result was far from conclusively proving that Oswald
>fired a rifle that day.
It was NOT a 'positive' result. You seem to have the same problem
that Jean does. Rather disingenious to call it 'positive' if the
element barium is present... that's NOT the purpose of the testing.
Quantity is what is being compared, not presence or absence.
>>Sorta like arsenic... I'm quite sure that I'd test "positive" for
>>arsenic in my body. It's NOT, on the other hand, the sort of positive
>>result that a prosecutor would take to the jury... I'm still alive,
>>with no poisoning symptoms, after all...
>>
>>But saying that my body tested positive for arsenic would give a
>>misleading implication to those who didn't know that I'm in perfect
>>health, and alive...
>>
>>>The WC didn't regard this test
>>>as evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day and neither
>>>do I.
>>
>>Actually, as I previously pointed out, this is good supportive
>>evidence that he DIDN'T fire a rifle that day. This is, of course,
>>the major reason, IMO, that these test results were covered up.
>>
>
>You are saying that test results *explicitly* discussed by the WC were
>"covered up?"
Yes. Nowhere is it mentioned that a number of tests were done in
which *ALL* the shooters showed "heavy deposits" on the face.
If, John, you'd have carefully followed the conversation, or just
carefully read the above... this silly statement of yours that the WC
*did* "explicitly" discuss this wouldn't have been made.
>From WCR page 562:
>
><Quote on>
>
> The paraffin casts of Oswald's hands and right cheek were also
>examined by neutron-activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National
>Laboratory. Barium and antimony were found to be present on both
>surfaces of all the casts and also in residues from the rifle
>cartridge cases and the revolver cartridge cases. 96 Since barium and
>antimony were present in both the rifle and the revolver cartridge
>cases, their presence on the casts were not evidence that Oswald had
>fired the rifle. Moreover, the presence on the inside surface of the
>cheek cast of a lesser amount of barium, and only a slightly greater
>amount of antimony, than was found on the outside surface of the cast
>rendered it impossible to attach significance to the presence of these
>elements on the inside surface. Since the outside surface had not been
>in contact with Oswald's cheek, the barium and antimony found there
>had come from a source other than Oswald. Furthermore, while there was
>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, it is also true that barium and antimony may be present
>in many common items; for example, barium may be present in grease,
>ceramics, glass, paint, printing ink, paper, rubber, plastics,
>leather, cloth, pyrotechnics, oilcloth and linoleum, storage
>batteries, matches and cosmetics; antimony is present in matches, type
>metal, lead alloys, paints and lacquers, pigments for oil and water
>colors, flameproof textiles, storage batteries, pyrotechnics, rubber,
>pharmaceutical preparations and calico; and both barium and antimony
>are present in printed paper and cloth, paint, storage batteries,
>rubber, matches, pyrotechnics, and possibly other items. However, the
>barium and antimony present in these items are usually not present in
>a form which would lead to their adhering to the skin of a person who
>had handled such items. 97
>
><Quote off>
Sorry John... not a SINGLE mention that in a number of tests, ALL the
shooters had "heavy deposits" on their faces.
Or, can you FIND that particular paragraph in the WC volumes? They
commissioned the tests, then they refused to detail the results which
would tend to exonerate LHO. *That*, John, is a 'coverup'.
>>>I'm only saying that Weisberg may've gotten the
>>>results of these two different tests mixed up. The DPD
>>>did the traditional paraffin test and found no nitrates on
>>>Oswald's cheek cast (negative result). The FBI had an
>>>agent fire the M-C twice and also got no nitrates on
>>>the face (negative result) -- and this is what the WC reported.
>>>But when the same Oswald face cast was sent to the FBI
>>>and checked for barium and antimony the results were positive
>>>-- the two elements were THERE. What that actually *means*
>>>is another matter.
>>
>>What it MEANS is a negative result. The fact that Gallagher was
>>unwilling to commit to that answer means little.
>>
>
>Are you actually claiming that the NAA test that the WC had done on
>the paraffin cast proves Oswald *didn't* shoot a rifle?
>
>If so, that's simply lousy science.
No, and if you'd bother to READ this whole post, you'd discover that
I've said that it only tends to demonstrate... not prove.
A demonstration, John, of lousy reading skills.
>>> If Weisberg wasn't quoting the results of
>>>a neutron activation test, rather than a paraffin test
>>>as he claimed, then why did he have to sue the
>>>ERDA to get them? Why would the ERDA have
>>>control over tests done by the Dallas PD?
>>
>>The tests *were* done by the ERDA. To quote from my citation above:
>>
>>"I learned of this and much else about these tests (NAA) when ERDA,
>>which I had joined in the lawsuit, CA 75-226, anxious not to be
>>besmirched for noncooperation in the lawsuit that the Department of
>>Justice and the FBI controlled, decided to give me copies of its
>>records. They were delivered to my lawyer, Jim Lesar, at this home by
>>the assistant United States attorney for the District of Columbia who
>>represented the government in the lawsuit. These records included the
>>results of a number of test firings with that rifle and the paraffin
>>tests made on those who fired it. The test firings left heavy
>>deposits on all the shooters' faces, quite the opposite of what the
>>paraffin tests of Oswald's face disclosed. This of course, was even
>>more exculpatory.
>>
>
>I think we need to see these "records," don't you think?
Of course I do. Unfortunately, the WC didn't. Do you agree with the
WC's decision to hide this data?
Or with the Justice Department and FBI's refusal to release this data?
>>FBI lab agent, John F. Gallagher, the spectrographer who did not
>>testify to any of his spectrographic examinations before the Warren
>You are the one making the accusation. You need to prove it.
I made the accusation that the WC was dishonest in hiding this
information that THEY had commissioned. They did. *YOU* cannot
produce it. Therefore, I've already PROVEN what I set out to prove.
Recognize that, or fail to recognize it... doesn't matter. There are
enough *other* people reading this, and making judgements.
>Produce the test results that showed that firing a gun always produced
>positive results. IOW, that there were no "false negatives."
And what would *this* prove? I've already demonstrated that the WC
was dishonest enough to fail to include the fact that *ALL* shooters
tested had "heavy deposits" on their face.
You want to discuss the *actual* testing... so would I.
Unfortunately, the WC, by it's dishonest handling of it's own
commissioned work, has made it difficult for others to gain access to
this data. Weisberg had to sue to get it. Why is that, John?
>>>> It took an FOIA lawsuit to get the data on these tests. Care to
>>>> explain the "national security" implications involved here?
>>>
>>> I have no idea, but, respectfully -- so what? The gov'ment
>>>often does things that seem silly or stupid. It seems to me that
>>>CTs often assume that if something is unexplained
>>>there is only ONE possible explanation -- a coverup.
>>
>>Always happy to entertain other reasons. These *are*, after all, only
>>people on the *other* side of these FOIA requests. Reasoning,
>>thinking people... who *don't* live in a sanitorium... they can be
>>expected to have a reason for the things they do.
>>
>>> And yet,
>>>after millions of pages of classified documents have been released,
>>>how many of them really contained anything worth hiding?
>>
>>Actually, quite a few... or haven't you been reading the take from the
>>ARRB?
>>
>
>Why don't you tell us what contained "anything worth hiding."
Why don't you tell us WHY it *was* hidden for so many years...
In fact, this subject makes an excellent starting point... everyone
seems to agree that the NAA tests were entirely supportive of the WC
conclusions. Why did it take a lawsuit to get the data into the
public domain? Why didn't the WC simply publish this data?
>>For example, without an FOIA lawsuit of Weisberg's, we wouldn't have
>>the transcripts of the WC executive sessions, which detail many
>>interesting things from the viewpoint of a CT'er.
>>
>
>Nothing, unfortunately, that suggests a conspiracy.
???
>>>> >This is in no way a contradiction of the WR statement that rifle
>>>> >tests showed negative results for *nitrates* on the cheek. Different
>>>> >tests, different results. Weisberg said "heavy deposits" were left
>>>> >on the shooters' faces, but heavy deposits of WHAT? Too bad he didn't say,
>>>> >but since the papers came from the ERDA, I assume he must be talking about
>>>> >the elements Oak Ridge tested for -- barium and antimony. If so, there's
>>>> >no WC dishonesty here.
>>>>
>>>> Sure there is. LHO *did not* have the "heavy deposits", regardless of
>>>> whether it was barium and antimony or nitrates. The test shooters
>>>> *did*. It took a lawsuit to force this information out.
>>>
>>> If this information is really "out," I'd
>>>like to see the original document, myself.
>>
>>And so would I. But I also have a great deal of trust in Weisberg,
>>I've never caught him 'out' on a fact yet... unlike other authors, of
>>both CT and LN persuasion.
>>
>
>Translation: I can't produce the document. I'm just taking
>Weisberg's word for it.
No John, I generally mean just what I say. I have a good enough
command of the English language to be able to get across any
particular point I'm making. And it seems that I'm making my point
quite well when you are unable to demonstrate that the WC actually
included this data in the 26 volumes. Despite your WC quotes...
You can either cite what I know the WC volumes don't contain, or you
can call Weisberg a liar. Since I'm sure that you're well aware of
how quickly people would produce this data if you tried to call
Weisberg a liar, you've taken the easy road out. It's quite clear
that I don't have the source material on this. And I'm *also* quite
sure that I'd be far more interested in it than you would. The WC
didn't make a habit of burying evidence that was in favor of their
theory, and I'm sure you know this.
>You shouldn't. He was a mean old coot who never missed an opportunity
>to attack people who disagreed with him.
Everyone has an opinion...
>.John
GMcNally
Weisberg's papers and FOIA released FBI documents - as well as Sylvia
Meagher's - are at the Hood College library in Fredricksberg, MD, and
open to the public.
Check the college web site.
Jerry
Jean Davison
"GMcNally" <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a163e09.02070...@posting.google.com...
> Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:<05gciusorejmh5ppr...@4ax.com>...
> > On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:14:30 -0400, "Jean Davison"
> > <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Good question.
>
> Weisberg's papers and FOIA released FBI documents - as well as Sylvia
> Meagher's - are at the Hood College library in Fredricksberg, MD, and
> open to the public.
>
> Check the college web site.
Thanks, Jerry, you are right.
Jean
>
> Jerry
GMcNally
Until recently, Weisberg's file cabinets were a unique resource and
visited by all authors. At this time, I believe that all he had - and
much more - are widely available on CD-ROMs sold by Lancer, et al.
Weisberg believed that the FBI NAA tests proved Oswald innocent.
That's his reading of them. And *that's* - he surmised - the reason
the FBI fought to keep from releasing them.
I believe that a more objective reading is that the tests were
inconclusive and that they weren't well-handled or well-interpreted -
Guinn pointed that out - and that's why they didn't want to release
them.
Jerry
>
>
>
> >
> > Jerry
GMcNally
Weisberg's opinions were odd: that Oswald didn't have the ability to
make the shots, that the Tague episode proves a second gunman, that
the curbstone was
tampered with to coverup evidence, that Oswald was involved with
another person in New Orleans who picked up the fliers he picked up.
All very dubious.
I used to visit Weisberg and look through his files. He had put
together a collection of key documents that he believed proved
conspiracy and the so-called WC as a criminal conspiracy. The three
documents you/he referred to were not among them - though documents
from the FBI tests were.
I think that if he had such documents and they were as powerful and as
exculpatory as you/he say they were, he would have included them in
the package and quoted them or reproduced them over and over and over
again in his many books.
The fact that he did not do so suggests the documents he had were not
as exculpatory as you suggest.
The FBI tests were not well-conducted or well-interpreted. It was not
until Guinn both did his own tests and reviewed the FBI that any
scientific interpretation of the tests was done.
The bottom line on the paraffin tests is: they were inconclusive for
firing a rifle and suggestive that he did fire a pistol - not from the
mere presence of nitrates, et al, but, based on the *pattern* of the
nitrates on his hand.
Jerry
>
> >.John
Ben Holmes
Nice opinions Jerry... now, can you explain why the WC failed to
include the data on the tests that THEY had commissioned?
I call it dishonesty... you apparently prefer to discuss your opinion
of Weisberg.
Your "bottom line" on paraffin tests is not born out by the comment of
the test results that Weisberg had to go to court for. Why did the WC
not mention those results?
Inconclusive for firing a rifle? How do you know? The data was never
published!
GMcNally
> On 7 Jul 2002 07:54:34 -0700, jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote:
I'll put my reply on the top so people don't have to scroll down so
much.
I didn't know that the WC "commissioned" the FBI tests - do you have a
cite for that? - or that they received the test documents. Can you
prove that they did?
I know they are mentioned in WC testimony - with no reference to the
WC "commissioning" such tests.
From what I've read, the FBI tests were the first occasion that NAA
had ever been used for forensic purposes; that the tests were not
well-done or well-analyzed; that the results were not conclusive.
Based on the DPD and FBI tests one cannot conclude with certainty that
either a) Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22 or b) that he did not fire
one.
And that's what the WC said about the paraffin tests: they're
unreliable and inconclusive.
So, I don't understand your calling the WC "dishonest" on this point.
I think you cannot justify such a conclusion.
Jerry
Ben Holmes
>Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message news:<3p1hiuk4n6hbqufdm...@4ax.com>...
>> On 7 Jul 2002 07:54:34 -0700, jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote:
>
>I'll put my reply on the top so people don't have to scroll down so
>much.
>
>I didn't know that the WC "commissioned" the FBI tests - do you have a
>cite for that? - or that they received the test documents. Can you
>prove that they did?
>I know they are mentioned in WC testimony - with no reference to the
>WC "commissioning" such tests.
>
>From what I've read, the FBI tests were the first occasion that NAA
>had ever been used for forensic purposes; that the tests were not
>well-done or well-analyzed; that the results were not conclusive.
>
>Based on the DPD and FBI tests one cannot conclude with certainty that
>either a) Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22 or b) that he did not fire
>one.
>
>And that's what the WC said about the paraffin tests: they're
>unreliable and inconclusive.
>
>So, I don't understand your calling the WC "dishonest" on this point.
>I think you cannot justify such a conclusion.
>
>Jerry
This is not rocket science, Jerry... to quote Weisberg
"These records [released to Weisberg as a result of an FOIA lawsuit]
included the results of a number of test firings with that rifle and
the paraffin tests made on those who fired it. The test firings left
heavy deposits on all the shooters' faces, quite the opposite of what
the paraffin tests of Oswalds' face disclosed."
If it's your theory that the FBI hid this information from the WC, I
don't have any evidence to dispute it. Other than the rather obvious
fact that if they didn't receive all the data that ERDA provided, they
should have *asked* for it.
Jean Davison
Ben, I didn't say "the test was positive," I said it was "positive FOR
barium and antimony." Since we disagree about how to define
this word, I suggest that we instead use Gallagher's statement that
these two elements were "present." I'm attaching his testimony at
the end of this post.
>
> The WC had nothing to do with this "implication" that Jean and I were
> discussing.
>
> >>>The question was, Is barium and antimony present, and
> >>>the answer was "yes"; therefore, the test result was *positive*
> >>>for barium and antimony.
> >>
> >>But the test was NEGATIVE as far as an objective result.
> >>
> >
> >No, the positive result was far from conclusively proving that Oswald
> >fired a rifle that day.
>
> It was NOT a 'positive' result. You seem to have the same problem
> that Jean does. Rather disingenious to call it 'positive' if the
> element barium is present... that's NOT the purpose of the testing.
> Quantity is what is being compared, not presence or absence.
>
It's not disingenious at all. You're simply redefining
the term to mean something different from what I intended.
But, never mind, it's not worth arguing about. I withdraw
the word "positive."
>
> >>Sorta like arsenic... I'm quite sure that I'd test "positive" for
> >>arsenic in my body. It's NOT, on the other hand, the sort of positive
> >>result that a prosecutor would take to the jury... I'm still alive,
> >>with no poisoning symptoms, after all...
> >>
> >>But saying that my body tested positive for arsenic would give a
> >>misleading implication to those who didn't know that I'm in perfect
> >>health, and alive...
> >>
> >>>The WC didn't regard this test
> >>>as evidence that Oswald fired a rifle that day and neither
> >>>do I.
> >>
> >>Actually, as I previously pointed out, this is good supportive
> >>evidence that he DIDN'T fire a rifle that day. This is, of course,
> >>the major reason, IMO, that these test results were covered up.
> >>
> >
> >You are saying that test results *explicitly* discussed by the WC were
> >"covered up?"
>
> Yes. Nowhere is it mentioned that a number of tests were done in
> which *ALL* the shooters showed "heavy deposits" on the face.
Heavy deposits of what? How many shooters, and
who were they? Yes, I know... you can't tell me because
Weisberg didn't say.
Thanks for posting that, because as you can see,
the WC didn't count these tests as evidence that Oswald
had fired a rifle.
>
> Sorry John... not a SINGLE mention that in a number of tests, ALL the
> shooters had "heavy deposits" on their faces.
>
> Or, can you FIND that particular paragraph in the WC volumes? They
> commissioned the tests, then they refused to detail the results which
> would tend to exonerate LHO. *That*, John, is a 'coverup'.
>
I don't know yet that the WC "refused to detail
the results," but it certainly appears that Weisberg "refused
to detail the results." I'm not "calling him a liar," btw, only
suggesting that he may've misinterpreted or misread it --
that can happen to anyone.
Here's Gallagher's complete testimony on this
subject, and he mentioned several reasons why the
results couldn't be considered conclusive:
QUOTE:
Mr. GALLAGHER. The paraffin casts were analyzed by neutron activation analyses to
determine if these casts from Oswald, which were made, chemically treated, and
subsequently washed by investigators in the Dallas area, bear any deposits which could be
associated with the rifle cartridges found in the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Mr. REDLICH. Do you know why the casts had been chemically treated in Dallas?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Reportedly, these casts were chemically treated for the presence of
nitrates.
Mr. REDLICH. This is what is popularly referred to as the paraffin test?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; it has been popularly referred to as the paraffin test.
Mr. REDLICH. And your testimony is that these casts had been washed by the time they
reached your possession; is that correct?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. REDLICH. Would you continue ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. The deposits found on the paraffin casts from the hands and cheek of
Oswald could not be specifically associated with the rifle cartridges. The casts from
Oswald bore elements--namely, barium and antimony--which were present in the powder
residues from both the rifle, and revolver cartridges. No characteristic elements were
found by neutron activation analysis of the residues which could be used to distinguish
the rifle from the revolver cartridges. In view of the fact that the paraffin casts were
not made until after the reported firing and handling of the fired revolver, no
significance could be attached to the residues found on the casts other than the
conclusion that the barium and antimony in these residues are present in amounts greater
than found on the hands of an individual who has not recently fired or handled a recently
fired weapon.
Mr. REDLICH. You mentioned in your answer, Mr. Gallagher, that the elements which you
found present on the paraffin casts, which were also present on the spent cartridges found
at the Texas School Book Depository, were the elements barium and antimony; is that
correct ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. REDLICH. In your opinion, what is the source of the elements barium and antimony on
these cartridges ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Barium and antimony are residues left from the spent primers in the
cartridges.
Mr. REDLICH. The primer being the portion of the cartridge which ignites the principal
explosive substance in the cartridge; is that correct?
Mr. GALLAGHER. The primer is that portion of the cartridge which is----
Mr. REDLICH. If I may interrupt--which is initially struck by the firing pin?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Which is struck by the firing pin, and detonates to initiate the explosive
charge in the cartridge itself.
Mr. REDLICH. Now, are the elements barium and antimony found in most primer residues ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Barium and antimony are found in most primer residues; yes.
Mr. REDLICH. Did you determine whether barium and antimony are present in the Western
Cartridge Co. ammunition which was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I did, sir.
Mr. REDLICH. And did you find that barium and antimony are, in fact, found in ammunition
of that manufacturer?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes.
Mr. REDLICH. Did you also determine whether the elements barium and antimony are found in
the .38 caliber ammunition manufactured by Remington Peters and Winchester Western, which
was the ammunition used in the shooting of officer Tippit?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; I did.
Mr. REDLICH. And did you find that the elements barium and antimony were, in fact,
present in this type of ammunition?
748
Page 749
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; I did.
Mr. REDLICH. With regard to the rifle cartridges, did you examine the cartridges which
were actually found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; I did.
Mr. REDLICH. And did you determine that the elements barium and antimony were present on
those particular cartridges?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; I did.
Mr. REDLICH. Are you able to give us your opinion as to the possible effect of the
washing of the paraffin casts on the analysis which you performed? Let me rephrase the
question. Did the fact that these casts were washed prior to the neutron activation test
materially alter, in your opinion, the results of the neutron activation analysis ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I can say that the washing did not remove all the antimony and barium.
Mr. REDLICH. In your opinion, would the washing of these paraffin casts remove
substantial amounts of the elements barium and antimony if they were present on those
casts ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions of the barium and
antimony from these casts. This was determined from test casts which were studied in
connection with these analyses, But it did not remove all the barium and antimony.
Mr. REDLICH. Can you describe exactly what you did with these paraffin casts in order to
perform a neutron activation analysis ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Do you want me to tell who I worked with here?
Mr. REDLICH. Yes.
Mr. GALLAGHER. These casts were taken to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory at Oak Ridge,
Tenn., and there, with a Dr. Frank F. Dyer, and Mr. J. F. Emery, work was performed on
these casts. The casts were studied under a binocular microscope. The surface of the casts
were scraped. These paraffin scraping were put into a small container which was then
placed in a pneumatic tube and sent into the heart of the research reactor to be bombarded
by neutrons for a 3-minute period. The neutron flux was 6 times 10 to the 13th neutrons
per square centimeter per second. After the 3 minutes were up, the container with its
contents was discharged from the reactor.
The gamma ray spectrum was studied. And then chemical tests were made to precipitate
barium and also to precipitate the antimony. The barium and antimony were quantitatively
determined.
Mr. REDLICH. You stated in your answer that----
Mr. GALLAGHER. Correction. Were quantitatively determined by studying the gamma rays
emitted by the barium isotope 139 and the antimony isotope 122.
Mr. REDLICH. Now, according to your testimony, you determined that the elements barium
and antimony were present in the hand casts in an amount greater than would be expected in
the case of a person who had not fired a revolver.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Fired or handled a recently fired weapon.
Mr. REDLICH. Confining ourselves for the moment to the hand casts, does such a conclusion
enable you to state that the person from whose hands these cases were made had in fact
fired a revolver? The question I am asking you, Mr. Gallagher, is one designed to
determine the extent to which the neutron activation technique is able to result in
definitive judgments. Your initial answer was that the elements barium and antimony were
present in these casts in an amount greater than would be expected from a person who had
not either fired a weapon or handled a recently fired weapon. Are you able to, on the
basis of this, make a judgment as to whether in fact the person from whose hands these
casts were made had in your opinion fired a revolver, or handled a fired revolver?
Do you understand my question, before you attempt to answer it?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, first of all I reported that there was more on the hands than would
be found on the hands of a normal individual who had not fired or handled a recently fired
weapon. Now, I don't quite get the point of your question.
Mr. REDLICH. The point of my question is whether you are able, on the basis of
749
Page 750
this analysis, to express an opinion as to whether the person from whose hands these casts
were made had fired a weapon.
Mr. GALLAGHER. It is my opinion that the person from whom these casts were removed may
have either handled a fired weapon, or fired a weapon.
Mr. REDLICH. I would like to introduce into the record a letter which I have marked
Gallagher Exhibit No. 1.
(Gallagher Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)
Mr. REDLICH. This is a letter from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to J. Lee Rankin, general
counsel of this Commission. Are you familiar with the contents of this letter, Mr.
Gallagher?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. REDLICH. You will note that this letter indicates a variety of substances which
contain the element barium, the element antimony, and substances which contain the
elements barium and antimony.
The last question I asked you, Mr. Gallagher, was whether you could make a judgment as to
whether a person from whose hands these casts were made had fired a weapon or handled a
fired weapon, and you indicated that on the basis of these tests you could make such a
judgment.
The question I now ask you is in light of the contents of the letter which has been
designated as Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, are you able to isolate the source of the elements
barium and antimony which you found on the hand casts as coming from the primer residues
rather than from the substances which are described in Gallagher Exhibit No. 1 ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. It is true that there are common commercial products which contain barium
and which contain antimony.
Mr. REDLICH. And which contain barium and antimony together?
Mr. GALLAGHER. And also which contain barium and antimony together. However, before these
elements can contaminate the hands or person--hands or body of an individual--they must be
accessible so they can adhere by mechanical adhesion to the individual. Under normal
circumstances, most of the ingredients mentioned in Exhibit No. 1----
Mr. REDLICH. Excuse me--could you refer to that as Gallagher Exhibit No. 1?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, is not normally in the form which will permit
contamination by this mechanical adhesion.
Mr. REDLICH. Are you generally familiar with the test which is commonly referred to as
the paraffin test, which tests paraffin casts for nitrate residues?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. REDLICH. As I understand it, Mr. Gallagher, one of the reasons why this test is
considered unreliable for purposes of determining whether or not someone has fired a
weapon is the fact that the elements which react with the reagents in the paraffin test
are found in a variety of common substances. Is that correct?
Mr. GALLAGHER. The diphenylamine or the diphenylbenzadene tests are not specific. They
react with many ingredients and for this reason the results obtained from such tests are
difficult to interpret.
Mr. REDLICH. And when I asked you to evaluate the results of the neutron activation test
performed on the hand casts in the light of the contents of Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, do I
understand your answer to be that in the case of the neutron activation analysis it is
possible to make a valid determination as to the presence of the elements barium and
antimony, notwithstanding the fact that the elements barium and antimony are found in
common substances and not merely found in primer residues.
Mr. GALLAGHER. The determination of barium and antimony by neutron activation analysis is
specific. Although there are commercial products which contain the elements barium and
antimony, these components in many of these commercial products are not as available for
contaminating purposes as are nitrates and oxidizing agents detected by the diphenylamine
or diphenylbenzidine tests.
Mr. REDLICH. So that the differences between the neutron activation analysis and the
paraffin test for nitrate residues relate both to the question of the availability of the
nitrates and oxidizing agents in the paraffin test as compared to the barium and antimony
in the neutron activation analysis, and also to the fact that in the paraffin test for
nitrate residues, the result is not necessarily
750
Page 751
specific as to nitrate residues, whereas in the neutron activation analysis for the
presence of the elements barium and antimony, the results are specific to the elements
barium and antimony. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes. And furthermore, in Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, it says that paint, for
example, contains both barium and antimony--this does not mean that every sample of paint
contains barium and antimony. And so it is with the other items mentioned in Gallagher
Exhibit No. 1.
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.
751
Page 752
Mr. REDLICH. Getting back to the hand casts, did you use the outside surface of the hand
casts as a control surface?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; I did, sir.
Mr. REDLICH. Could you tell us how the inside or the outside surface of the hand cast
compared with regard to the elements barium and antimony?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Much more barium and antimony were found on the inside of the hand casts
than were found on the control specimens taken from the outside of the hand casts of the
subject.<<
END QUOTE
Jean
>
> >.John
GMcNally
The Exhibit in question, Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, is available on Tony
Marsh's website: http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/NAA/ex_f332.gif.
Contrary to Holme's assertion that the WC "commissioned" the tests and
received all the documents - which it proceeded to hide - this
document shows that the FBI did the NAA tests on its own and only
reported the inconclusive results on July 8, 1964 to the WC.
Jerry
Ben Holmes
says...
Unfortunately, that has little to do with the fact that the WC hid the data on
the "heavy deposits" left on the face of test shooters.
>Contrary to Holme's assertion that the WC "commissioned" the tests and
>received all the documents - which it proceeded to hide - this
>document shows that the FBI did the NAA tests on its own and only
>reported the inconclusive results on July 8, 1964 to the WC.
>
>Jerry
This isn't difficult to understand Jerry. It was the Warren Commission that was
responsible for the investigation. They FAILED in their duty to report the
information they had gathered. I know it irks you that the NAA didn't prove
what the WC wanted it to - that's *not* as you cunningly state, an
"inconclusive" result. It's exculpatory.
The WC in many instances reported contrary to their own evidence, this is just
one example. They were dishonest.
GMcNally
> On 7 Jul 2002 18:58:52 -0700, jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote:
>
> >Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message news:<3p1hiuk4n6hbqufdm...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 7 Jul 2002 07:54:34 -0700, jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote:
> >
> >I'll put my reply on the top so people don't have to scroll down so
> >much.
> >
> >I didn't know that the WC "commissioned" the FBI tests - do you have a
> >cite for that? - or that they received the test documents. Can you
> >prove that they did?
> >I know they are mentioned in WC testimony - with no reference to the
> >WC "commissioning" such tests.
> >
> >From what I've read, the FBI tests were the first occasion that NAA
> >had ever been used for forensic purposes; that the tests were not
> >well-done or well-analyzed; that the results were not conclusive.
> >
> >Based on the DPD and FBI tests one cannot conclude with certainty that
> >either a) Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22 or b) that he did not fire
> >one.
> >
> >And that's what the WC said about the paraffin tests: they're
> >unreliable and inconclusive.
> >
> >So, I don't understand your calling the WC "dishonest" on this point.
> >I think you cannot justify such a conclusion.
> >
> >Jerry
>
> This is not rocket science, Jerry... to quote Weisberg
Ben,
> "These records [released to Weisberg as a result of an FOIA lawsuit]
> included the results of a number of test firings with that rifle and
> the paraffin tests made on those who fired it. The test firings left
> heavy deposits on all the shooters' faces, quite the opposite of what
> the paraffin tests of Oswalds' face disclosed."
I am sceptical of Weisberg's claims, but, will withhold judgement
until I see the documents.
> If it's your theory that the FBI hid this information from the WC, I
> don't have any evidence to dispute it. Other than the rather obvious
> fact that if they didn't receive all the data that ERDA provided, they
> should have *asked* for it.
In fact, your claim that the WC "commissioned" the tests is false.
And your assumption that the WC received the documentation of the
tests is false.
All the FBI received is the following:
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/JFK.html.
The first time the WC heard about the NAA tests was on July 9, 1964 in
the letter from Hoover to Rankin - a letter which says that the tests
were inconclusive.
Further, we have Gallagher's testimony which describes the tests.
That's what the WC knew and that's what the WC reported.
You were wrong to accuse them of deception or of withholding
information.
If you think there's more out there regarding these tests that is
important, then, the burdon on you is to prove it by producing the
documents that Weisberg "claims" supports his theory that Oswald never
fired a rifle on 11/22/63.
Jerry
GMcNally
When I wrote: "All the FBI received is the following:
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/JFK.html," I meant "All the WC received ..."
Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message news:<tluhiuo9hkfq4fn05...@4ax.com>...
GMcNally
Ben,
> Unfortunately, that has little to do with the fact that the WC hid the data on
> the "heavy deposits" left on the face of test shooters.
Really? Can you prove that?
They had the letter from Hoover and the testimony cited above. If you
think they had more, then PROVE IT!
> >Contrary to Holme's assertion that the WC "commissioned" the tests and
> >received all the documents - which it proceeded to hide - this
> >document shows that the FBI did the NAA tests on its own and only
> >reported the inconclusive results on July 8, 1964 to the WC.
> >
> >Jerry
>
> This isn't difficult to understand Jerry. It was the Warren Commission that was responsible for the investigation.
Above you asserted that the WC "commissioned" the tests at Oak Ridge;
are you taking that back and acknowledging your error?
They FAILED in their duty to report the
> information they had gathered.
You assert that, but, have not proved it.
They reported what they had; it took the HSCA and Dr Guinn to sort out
the NAA questions. It was the HSCA that had all the documents
regarding what the FBI did.
Perhaps you recall that the HSCA concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy
and fired all the shots which hit?
I know it irks you that the NAA didn't prove
> what the WC wanted it to - that's *not* as you cunningly state, an
> "inconclusive" result. It's exculpatory.
Prove that the "WCC wanted" a particular result.
> The WC in many instances reported contrary to their own evidence, this is just
> one example. They were dishonest.
You have not made your case, Ben.
Jerry
Ben Holmes
It's self-evident, Jerry.
If you wish to make the case that the bad FBI covered it up... instead
of the WC... go for it.
>> >Contrary to Holme's assertion that the WC "commissioned" the tests and
>> >received all the documents - which it proceeded to hide - this
>> >document shows that the FBI did the NAA tests on its own and only
>> >reported the inconclusive results on July 8, 1964 to the WC.
>> >
>> >Jerry
>>
>> This isn't difficult to understand Jerry. It was the Warren Commission that was responsible for the investigation.
>
>Above you asserted that the WC "commissioned" the tests at Oak Ridge;
>are you taking that back and acknowledging your error?
Nope. As you are fond of saying Jerry... Prove it.
The Warren Commission was tasked to do the job of investigating the
assassination. They had broad sweeping powers to subpoena, and to
demand pretty much anything they wanted. They were *well aware* of
these tests being performed by the ERDA. By not publishing any
evidence that would tend to exonerate LHO, they lied by omission.
That's dishonest in any language you care to speak.
> They FAILED in their duty to report the
>> information they had gathered.
>
>You assert that, but, have not proved it.
What do you want, Jerry? Their admission?
>They reported what they had; it took the HSCA and Dr Guinn to sort out
>the NAA questions. It was the HSCA that had all the documents
>regarding what the FBI did.
Hmmm... haven't looked into this aspect... are you saying that the
HSCA *also* failed to publish this data?
>Perhaps you recall that the HSCA concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy
>and fired all the shots which hit?
Yeah, they also concluded it was a conspiracy. Why can't you accept
the government conclusions Jerry? They're the experts!
> I know it irks you that the NAA didn't prove
>> what the WC wanted it to - that's *not* as you cunningly state, an
>> "inconclusive" result. It's exculpatory.
>
>Prove that the "WCC wanted" a particular result.
Is there *anyone* other than Jerry who feels that the WC wouldn't have
been overjoyed to have a positive paraffin test on the cheeks?
Jerry, you're allowing just a wee bit of silliness to sneak into your
arguments.
>> The WC in many instances reported contrary to their own evidence, this is just
>> one example. They were dishonest.
>
>You have not made your case, Ben.
Well, Jerry, just who *did* attempt to lie to the American public by
hiding the results of these tests?
For as surely as John will snatch posts from other groups, *SOMEBODY*
did.
I place the blame on the responsible party... who do you blame?
>Jerry
Ben Holmes
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
I'd trust Weisberg, who sued to get this information, over the WC, who
lied by omission.
> Here's Gallagher's complete testimony on this
>subject, and he mentioned several reasons why the
>results couldn't be considered conclusive:
Nowhere in the below testimony is the fact that according to
Weisberg's reading of the data, there were "heavy deposits" on the
faces of the test shooters.
And, I'd be interested in how you believe that the results could not
be termed conclusive... what was the control??? Not other people who
*had* fired a rifle... the control they used was the outside of LHO's
cast!!! Now, that's fine to eliminate possible contamination in the
paraffin... but to judge the *meaning* of those results, you have to
compare them against a control group.
All you've demonstrated, Jean, is that Gallagher wouldn't mention it
either...
>> >.John
GMcNally
Pardon me for jumping in!
I think that Gallagher did mention it in the following passage:
> Mr. GALLAGHER. Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions of the barium and antimony from these casts. This was determined from test casts which were studied in connection with these analyses, But it did not remove all the barium and antimony.
What he means is that test shooters showed deposits of barium and
antimony on their cheeks - call them "heavy deposits" if you like.
The paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek also showed deposits of barium and
antimony, but, not "heavy deposits" because the DPD had chemically
treated and washed the cast of his cheek. This removed most but not
all of the chemicals.
Thus, Oswald's paraffin cast was qualitatively the same as the test
shooters' casts, but, because of the treating and washing,
quantitatively different: theirs were "heavy", his was light.
The bottom line is that the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek - whether
tested for nitrates by the DPD or for barium and antimony by the FBI -
never yielded results which proved he did or did not fire a rifle on
11/22/63.
Jerry
> either...
>
> >> >.John
GMcNally
Ben,
I asked: "Really? Can you prove that?"
> >They had the letter from Hoover and the testimony cited above. If you
> >think they had more, then PROVE IT!
>
> It's self-evident, Jerry.
IOW you can't prove anything, but, are too stubborn to admit it.
> If you wish to make the case that the bad FBI covered it up... instead
> of the WC... go for it.
They didn't have anything to cover up from the WC: the test results
were entirely inconclusive. Guinn was able to re-analyze the results
of the NAA tests of the fragments and found the FBI had mis-analyzed
them and when properly analyzed agreed with his own findings.
But, the nitrate and barium/antimony tests of the cast of Oswald's
cheek never proved anything: not that he fired a weapon or didn't fire
a weapon.
> >> >Contrary to Holme's assertion that the WC "commissioned" the tests and
> >> >received all the documents - which it proceeded to hide - this
> >> >document shows that the FBI did the NAA tests on its own and only
> >> >reported the inconclusive results on July 8, 1964 to the WC.
> >> >
> >> >Jerry
> >>
> >> This isn't difficult to understand Jerry. It was the Warren Commission that was responsible for the investigation.
> >
> >Above you asserted that the WC "commissioned" the tests at Oak Ridge;
> >are you taking that back and acknowledging your error?
>
> Nope. As you are fond of saying Jerry... Prove it.
Read the Exhibit. It first informs the WC that in addition to
spectrographic tests - which the WC knew about - the FBI had done NAA
tests. The WC heard about this for the first time when they were
wrapping up their investigation - on July 9, 1964.
> The Warren Commission was tasked to do the job of investigating the
> assassination. They had broad sweeping powers to subpoena, and to
> demand pretty much anything they wanted. They were *well aware* of
> these tests being performed by the ERDA. By not publishing any
> evidence that would tend to exonerate LHO, they lied by omission.
> That's dishonest in any language you care to speak.
There was nothing to investigate. The FBI tests were poorly done and
poorly analyzed and yielded nothing of value.
Read over Gallagher's testimony again and notice that he covers
everything of importance and concludes the tests were inconclusive.
And he gives a reason for the quantitative difference between the test
shooters cheek casts and Oswald regarding the presence of barium and
antimony:
Oswald's paraffin cast had been chemically treated and washed by the
DPD. This process removed much - not alll - of the barium and antimony
on the cast.
> Mr. GALLAGHER. Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions of the barium and antimony from these casts. This was determined from test casts which were studied in connection with these analyses, But it did not remove all the barium and antimony.
That's why Oswald's cast was different quantitatively - not
qualitatively - from the test shooters' casts.
But, Weisberg doesn't tell you that.
> > They FAILED in their duty to report the
> >> information they had gathered.
> >
> >You assert that, but, have not proved it.
>
> What do you want, Jerry? Their admission?
Their performance regarding the FBI tests is exemplary. Notice that
they do not
use them to support their conclusion - and the HSCA's - that Oswald
fired the shots that struck JFK and JBC.
> >They reported what they had; it took the HSCA and Dr Guinn to sort out
> >the NAA questions. It was the HSCA that had all the documents
> >regarding what the FBI did.
> Hmmm... haven't looked into this aspect... are you saying that the
> HSCA *also* failed to publish this data?
It didn't publish the data in the volumes. It wasn't until the JFK
Record's Act that the HSCA supporting documents/files was available to
researchers.
> >Perhaps you recall that the HSCA concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy
> >and fired all the shots which hit?
> Yeah, they also concluded it was a conspiracy. Why can't you accept
> the government conclusions Jerry? They're the experts!
IF the dictabelt findings WERE correct then there would be a PROBABLE
conspiracy. Yes.
> > I know it irks you that the NAA didn't prove
> >> what the WC wanted it to - that's *not* as you cunningly state, an
> >> "inconclusive" result. It's exculpatory.
> >
> >Prove that the "WCC wanted" a particular result.
>
> Is there *anyone* other than Jerry who feels that the WC wouldn't have
> been overjoyed to have a positive paraffin test on the cheeks?
As Earl Warren told the staff: "Our only client is the truth".
Actually the young lawyers looked for conspiracy evidence to prove the
FBI wrong. It would have made them world famous.
> Jerry, you're allowing just a wee bit of silliness to sneak into your
> arguments.
>
> >> The WC in many instances reported contrary to their own evidence, this is just one example. They were dishonest.
> >
> >You have not made your case, Ben.
> Well, Jerry, just who *did* attempt to lie to the American public by
> hiding the results of these tests?
Harold Weisberg lied by claiming the tests were exculpatory of Oswald
and proved he didn't fire a rifle on 11/22/63.
The paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek yielded no results - either
postive or negative.
But, Weisberg wasn't honest enough to tell you that.
Jerry
Ben Holmes
Heard you. When you are in charge of an investigation... you have the
responsibility. The WC had the responsibility.
*Somebody* hid the data... who do you want to blame, Jerry?
>> >They had the letter from Hoover and the testimony cited above. If you
>> >think they had more, then PROVE IT!
>>
>> It's self-evident, Jerry.
>
>IOW you can't prove anything, but, are too stubborn to admit it.
Who would you like to place the blame on, Jerry.
It's a *FACT* that there was data that was exculpatory for LHO that
was not revealed.
Who do *you* wish to blame?
>> If you wish to make the case that the bad FBI covered it up... instead
>> of the WC... go for it.
>
>They didn't have anything to cover up from the WC: the test results
>were entirely inconclusive.
So you keep repeating. However, when you have heavy deposits on *all*
test shooters, and fail to mention that - it's dishonest.
And it's not necessarily "inconclusive".
>Guinn was able to re-analyze the results
>of the NAA tests of the fragments and found the FBI had mis-analyzed
>them and when properly analyzed agreed with his own findings.
>
>But, the nitrate and barium/antimony tests of the cast of Oswald's
>cheek never proved anything: not that he fired a weapon or didn't fire
>a weapon.
When they aren't compared to a test group, they will never prove
*anything* Jerry.
And SOMEBODY hid the fact that the test group had "heavy deposits" on
all of their faces.
>> >> >Contrary to Holme's assertion that the WC "commissioned" the tests and
>> >> >received all the documents - which it proceeded to hide - this
>> >> >document shows that the FBI did the NAA tests on its own and only
>> >> >reported the inconclusive results on July 8, 1964 to the WC.
>> >> >
>> >> >Jerry
>> >>
>> >> This isn't difficult to understand Jerry. It was the Warren Commission that was responsible for the investigation.
>> >
>> >Above you asserted that the WC "commissioned" the tests at Oak Ridge;
>> >are you taking that back and acknowledging your error?
>>
>> Nope. As you are fond of saying Jerry... Prove it.
>
>Read the Exhibit. It first informs the WC that in addition to
>spectrographic tests - which the WC knew about - the FBI had done NAA
>tests. The WC heard about this for the first time when they were
>wrapping up their investigation - on July 9, 1964.
Hmmm... then they must have been consulting a crystal ball during
their Jan 27th meeting. How do you explain the reference to this
topic during their executive meeting if they didn't know anything
about this until 6 months later?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0070a.htm
Perhaps you need to read Weisberg, Jerry? You might get some better
information on these sort of things.
>> The Warren Commission was tasked to do the job of investigating the
>> assassination. They had broad sweeping powers to subpoena, and to
>> demand pretty much anything they wanted. They were *well aware* of
>> these tests being performed by the ERDA. By not publishing any
>> evidence that would tend to exonerate LHO, they lied by omission.
>> That's dishonest in any language you care to speak.
>
>There was nothing to investigate. The FBI tests were poorly done and
>poorly analyzed and yielded nothing of value.
>
>Read over Gallagher's testimony again and notice that he covers
>everything of importance
Except the fact that every test shooter had "heavy deposits" on their
face".
>and concludes the tests were inconclusive.
>
>And he gives a reason for the quantitative difference between the test
>shooters cheek casts and Oswald regarding the presence of barium and
>antimony:
No he didn't. He never *mentioned* the test shooters.
>Oswald's paraffin cast had been chemically treated and washed by the
>DPD. This process removed much - not alll - of the barium and antimony
>on the cast.
>
>> Mr. GALLAGHER. Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions
>>of the barium and antimony from these casts. This was determined from
>>test casts which were studied in connection with these analyses, But it
>>did not remove all the barium and antimony.
>
>That's why Oswald's cast was different quantitatively - not
>qualitatively - from the test shooters' casts.
Not shown.
>But, Weisberg doesn't tell you that.
Have you *read* what he said?
>> > They FAILED in their duty to report the
>> >> information they had gathered.
>> >
>> >You assert that, but, have not proved it.
>>
>> What do you want, Jerry? Their admission?
>
>Their performance regarding the FBI tests is exemplary. Notice that
>they do not
>use them to support their conclusion - and the HSCA's - that Oswald
>fired the shots that struck JFK and JBC.
Of course not. It won't support it. But it WILL support an
exculpatory viewpoint. That's why the data was hidden away.
And that's dishonest.
>> >They reported what they had; it took the HSCA and Dr Guinn to sort out
>> >the NAA questions. It was the HSCA that had all the documents
>> >regarding what the FBI did.
>
>> Hmmm... haven't looked into this aspect... are you saying that the
>> HSCA *also* failed to publish this data?
>
>It didn't publish the data in the volumes. It wasn't until the JFK
>Record's Act that the HSCA supporting documents/files was available to
>researchers.
No, it was when Weisberg sued under the FOIA that this stuff was made
available...
>> >Perhaps you recall that the HSCA concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy
>> >and fired all the shots which hit?
>
>> Yeah, they also concluded it was a conspiracy. Why can't you accept
>> the government conclusions Jerry? They're the experts!
>
>IF the dictabelt findings WERE correct then there would be a PROBABLE
>conspiracy. Yes.
Hmmm... So you don't agree with the experts. Okay.
It would be an interesting discussion to see you defending that it's
only a "probable" conspiracy if it were proven that one shot came from
the GK. But that's another topic...
>> > I know it irks you that the NAA didn't prove
>> >> what the WC wanted it to - that's *not* as you cunningly state, an
>> >> "inconclusive" result. It's exculpatory.
>> >
>> >Prove that the "WCC wanted" a particular result.
>>
>> Is there *anyone* other than Jerry who feels that the WC wouldn't have
>> been overjoyed to have a positive paraffin test on the cheeks?
>
>As Earl Warren told the staff: "Our only client is the truth".
>Actually the young lawyers looked for conspiracy evidence to prove the
>FBI wrong. It would have made them world famous.
Dream on.
>> Jerry, you're allowing just a wee bit of silliness to sneak into your
>> arguments.
>>
>> >> The WC in many instances reported contrary to their own evidence, this is just one example. They were dishonest.
>> >
>> >You have not made your case, Ben.
>
>> Well, Jerry, just who *did* attempt to lie to the American public by
>> hiding the results of these tests?
>
>Harold Weisberg lied by claiming the tests were exculpatory of Oswald
>and proved he didn't fire a rifle on 11/22/63.
The tests ARE exculpatory. And Weisberg correctly points this out.
>The paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek yielded no results - either
>postive or negative.
LOL!!! This is a real gem!!
>But, Weisberg wasn't honest enough to tell you that.
No, Weisberg was honest enough not to try that garbage you just tried.
Ben Holmes
It's amazing what you are able to read into that sentence.
For some strange reason, I can't see anywhere where he states that all
the test shooters had "heavy deposits" on their face - in DIRECT
conflict with LHO's results.
Why is this information nowhere to be found? Who hid this fact,
Jerry?
And why, despite what you're trying to claim here, was this fact NOT
MENTIONED by Gallagher?
>The paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek also showed deposits of barium and
>antimony, but, not "heavy deposits" because the DPD had chemically
>treated and washed the cast of his cheek. This removed most but not
>all of the chemicals.
Then where is the data where this was duplicated, Jerry?
>Thus, Oswald's paraffin cast was qualitatively the same as the test
>shooters' casts, but, because of the treating and washing,
>quantitatively different: theirs were "heavy", his was light.
Scientific garbage. And not supported by any testimony that YOU can
locate.
>The bottom line is that the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek - whether
>tested for nitrates by the DPD or for barium and antimony by the FBI -
>never yielded results which proved he did or did not fire a rifle on
>11/22/63.
So you say, Jerry...
>Jerry
>
>> either...
>>
>> >> >.John
John McAdams
>Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message news:<05gciusorejmh5ppr...@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 19:14:30 -0400, "Jean Davison"
>> <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I don't see how you can be sure of that without
>> >seeing the document. Why don't we both try to find a copy,
>> >so that we can settle this question one way or the other?
>> >Does anyone know where Weisberg's papers are now and
>> >whether they're available to the public?
>> > Jean
>>
>> Good question.
>
>Weisberg's papers and FOIA released FBI documents - as well as Sylvia
>Meagher's - are at the Hood College library in Fredricksberg, MD, and
>open to the public.
>
>Check the college web site.
>
Good point, Jerry.
If some document exists to prove Weisberg's contention, it should be
there.
Can anybody produce it?
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
And when it's produced, will you explain why the WC failed to mention
this bit of exculpatory evidence?
GMcNally
Ben,
> >> Mr. GALLAGHER. Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions of the barium and antimony from these casts. This was determined from test casts which were studied in connection with these analyses, But it did not remove all the barium and antimony.
> >
> >What he means is that test shooters showed deposits of barium and
> >antimony on their cheeks - call them "heavy deposits" if you like.
>
> It's amazing what you are able to read into that sentence.
>
> For some strange reason, I can't see anywhere where he states that all
> the test shooters had "heavy deposits" on their face - in DIRECT
> conflict with LHO's results.
It was Weisberg - as quoted by you - who used the phrase "heavy
deposits". I'll bet you a week's wages that no FBI document uses that
phrase.
> Why is this information nowhere to be found? Who hid this fact,
> Jerry?
It's not hidden. Gallagher said that the paraffin casts of the test
shooters showed the presence of barium and antimony - and that
Oswald's cast also showed their presence.
The difference is that Oswald's paraffin cast had been chemically
treated and washed in Dallas - which removed much, not all, of the two
elements found in primers.
Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from the difference between
Oswald's cast and those of the subject shooters.
As I said, the WC reported what the FBI told them: the spectroscopic
and NAA tests on the frags was inconclusive and, in testimony, that
the presence of barium and antimony on Oswald's and the test shooters
face proved nothing, either.
That's what they were told; that's what they reported.
Your claim that the WC "covered up" info on these tests is refuted by
the facts.
> And why, despite what you're trying to claim here, was this fact NOT
> MENTIONED by Gallagher?
It is mentioned by Gallagher: that Oswald and the test shooters all
had barium and antimony, elements found in both rifle and pistol
primers, on their cheeks.
And he mentioned that Oswald's paraffin cast had been chemically
treated and washed which removed much of - but not all - the barium
and antimony on his cheek.
And Gallagher reported that the tests were inconclusive: which is the
fact that was confirmed by the HSCA which had Guinn do his own studies
and re-analyze the results of the FBI studies.
> >The paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek also showed deposits of barium and
> >antimony, but, not "heavy deposits" because the DPD had chemically
> >treated and washed the cast of his cheek. This removed most but not
> >all of the chemicals.
> Then where is the data where this was duplicated, Jerry?
Certainly not in Weisberg's book - where he dishonestly told his
readers only half the story and spun it in a way that falsely
suggested the results were exculpatory.
> >Thus, Oswald's paraffin cast was qualitatively the same as the test
> >shooters' casts, but, because of the treating and washing,
> >quantitatively different: theirs were "heavy", his was light.
> Scientific garbage. And not supported by any testimony that YOU can
> locate.
Look at what Gallagher said:
//Mr. GALLAGHER. Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions
of the barium and antimony from these casts. This was determined from
test casts which were studied in connection with these analyses, But
it did not remove all the barium and antimony.//
The chemical treatment and washing was done to Oswald's paraffin cast
and not to the casts of the test shooters; therefore, theirs showed
more barium and antimony that his did.
However, Gallagher goes on to say that the presence of these two
elements is not
conclusive proof that somebody did or did not fire a weapon, since
both rifle and pistol primers AND many common items in general use
contain the two elements.
Do I need to quote that passage for you?
> >The bottom line is that the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek - whether
> >tested for nitrates by the DPD or for barium and antimony by the FBI -
> >never yielded results which proved he did or did not fire a rifle on
> >11/22/63.
> So you say, Jerry...
What I say is that your assertion that the WC "commissioned" the tests
and received all the test documents - and then hid them - is not true
and demonstrated by me to be not true.
The FBI and the HSCA both determined that the paraffin cast of
Oswald's cheek was not probative of Oswald having fired - or not fired
- a rifle on 11/22/63.
Thus Weisberg's claims are false and dishonest.
Jerry
>
> >Jerry
> >
> >> either...
> >>
> >> >> >.John
Ben Holmes
So, your argument basically boils down to "I don't believe Weisberg".
That's fine.
But it's a simple fact that the WC hid the fact that *all* test
shooters had "heavy deposits" on their face.
And all the wriggling in the world isn't going to change that.
>> Why is this information nowhere to be found? Who hid this fact,
>> Jerry?
>
>It's not hidden. Gallagher said that the paraffin casts of the test
>shooters showed the presence of barium and antimony - and that
>Oswald's cast also showed their presence.
All you have to do, Jerry, is quote any WC volume where they mention
that all the test shooters had heavy deposits on their face.
>The difference is that Oswald's paraffin cast had been chemically
>treated and washed in Dallas - which removed much, not all, of the two
>elements found in primers.
So you believe.
>Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from the difference between
>Oswald's cast and those of the subject shooters.
So you believe. And, if so, WHY WAS THIS DATA HIDDEN?
>As I said, the WC reported what the FBI told them: the spectroscopic
>and NAA tests on the frags was inconclusive and, in testimony, that
>the presence of barium and antimony on Oswald's and the test shooters
>face proved nothing, either.
>
>That's what they were told; that's what they reported.
>
>Your claim that the WC "covered up" info on these tests is refuted by
>the facts.
Jerry, you're welcome to produce these "facts".
Are they the same sort as your claim that the WC first heard about
these tests on July 9th?
You know, Jerry, the post you couldn't find the time to answer?
Just to be helpful, let me repeat it here:
**************
>Read the Exhibit. It first informs the WC that in addition to
>spectrographic tests - which the WC knew about - the FBI had done NAA
>tests. The WC heard about this for the first time when they were
>wrapping up their investigation - on July 9, 1964.
Hmmm... then they must have been consulting a crystal ball during
their Jan 27th meeting. How do you explain the reference to this
topic during their executive meeting if they didn't know anything
about this until 6 months later?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0070a.htm
Perhaps you need to read Weisberg, Jerry? You might get some better
information on these sort of things.
****************
>> And why, despite what you're trying to claim here, was this fact NOT
>> MENTIONED by Gallagher?
>
>It is mentioned by Gallagher: that Oswald and the test shooters all
>had barium and antimony, elements found in both rifle and pistol
>primers, on their cheeks.
Saying this as many times as you care to do will not make it true,
Jerry.
>And he mentioned that Oswald's paraffin cast had been chemically
>treated and washed which removed much of - but not all - the barium
>and antimony on his cheek.
Of course... this is obviously standard procedure on any paraffin cast
that turns up with a negative result!! :)
>And Gallagher reported that the tests were inconclusive: which is the
>fact that was confirmed by the HSCA which had Guinn do his own studies
>and re-analyze the results of the FBI studies.
The tests could not have been "inconclusive" based on the data that
was reported. But keep on saying this, Jerry, someone, somewhere, may
believe you.
>> >The paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek also showed deposits of barium and
>> >antimony, but, not "heavy deposits" because the DPD had chemically
>> >treated and washed the cast of his cheek. This removed most but not
>> >all of the chemicals.
>
>> Then where is the data where this was duplicated, Jerry?
>
>Certainly not in Weisberg's book - where he dishonestly told his
>readers only half the story and spun it in a way that falsely
>suggested the results were exculpatory.
I think you missed my question Jerry... You asserted something, and
can't seem to find any evidence for your statement.
Now, once again, where is the data where this was duplicated, Jerry?
If it weren't for Weisberg, we wouldn't know this information *at
all*.
>> >Thus, Oswald's paraffin cast was qualitatively the same as the test
>> >shooters' casts, but, because of the treating and washing,
>> >quantitatively different: theirs were "heavy", his was light.
>
>> Scientific garbage. And not supported by any testimony that YOU can
>> locate.
>
>Look at what Gallagher said:
>
>//Mr. GALLAGHER. Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions
>of the barium and antimony from these casts. This was determined from
>test casts which were studied in connection with these analyses, But
>it did not remove all the barium and antimony.//
>
>The chemical treatment and washing was done to Oswald's paraffin cast
>and not to the casts of the test shooters; therefore, theirs showed
>more barium and antimony that his did.
>
>However, Gallagher goes on to say that the presence of these two
>elements is not
>conclusive proof that somebody did or did not fire a weapon, since
>both rifle and pistol primers AND many common items in general use
>contain the two elements.
>
>Do I need to quote that passage for you?
You're going to have to, Jerry, since you just misrepresented the
testimony. For the benefit of lurkers, the relevant passages are:
Mr. REDLICH. Has it been--is it used as a method of determining
whether or not a person has fired a weapon
Mr. GALLAGHER. I do know that this technique has been used to attempt
to determine if an individual has fired a weapon.
Mr. REDLICH. Do you believe that it is a technique which could be used
under certain conditions to determine whether or not a person has
fired a weapon?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I do believe that it is a technique which can be used
to determine if a person has fired a weapon or handled a recently
fired weapon.
and...
Mr. REDLICH. And when I asked you to evaluate the results of the
neutron activation test performed on the hand casts in the light of
the contents of Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, do I understand your answer
to be that in the case of the neutron activation analysis it is
possible to make a valid determination as to the presence of the
elements barium and antimony, notwithstanding the fact that the
elements barium and antimony are found in common substances and not
merely found in primer residues.
Mr. GALLAGHER. The determination of barium and antimony by neutron
activation analysis is specific. Although there are commercial
products which contain the elements barium and antimony, these
components in many of these commercial products are not as available
for contaminating purposes as are nitrates and oxidizing agents
detected by the diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine tests.
>> >The bottom line is that the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek - whether
>> >tested for nitrates by the DPD or for barium and antimony by the FBI -
>> >never yielded results which proved he did or did not fire a rifle on
>> >11/22/63.
>
>> So you say, Jerry...
>
>What I say is that your assertion that the WC "commissioned" the tests
>and received all the test documents - and then hid them - is not true
>and demonstrated by me to be not true.
Jerry, hiding your head in the sand is cute if you don't want to see
the truth...
It took a lawsuit to get the results of the NAA - which *supposedly*
was good prosecutorial evidence.
Included in this data was the fact that *all* test shooters had "heavy
deposits" on their face.
This simple fact IS NOT GIVEN by the WC. Despite your statements to
the contrary.
They were dishonest in failing to give this information.
>The FBI and the HSCA both determined that the paraffin cast of
>Oswald's cheek was not probative of Oswald having fired - or not fired
>- a rifle on 11/22/63.
You mean the prosecutor and the prosecutor both agreed that the
evidence couldn't possibly be of any use to the defense?
True... but this is just a red herring being dragged across this
discussion.
The WC dishonestly failed to include probable exculpatory evidence.
And by failing to do so, effectively hid it from the public until a
lawsuit brought it out.
If the government has nothing to hide, why do they continue to
obstruct efforts to get basic data on the assassination??
>Thus Weisberg's claims are false and dishonest.
Say it another hundred times, Jerry... you may convince somebody...
>Jerry
>>
>> >Jerry
>> >
>> >> either...
>> >>
>> >> >> >.John
Ben Holmes
***************************
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:51:41 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
McAdams) wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 13:45:22 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:22:07 -0400, "Jean Davison"
>><dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The fact that the documents came from the ERDA
>>>indicates that they deal with the results of the neutron activation
>>>tests done at Oak Ridge and NOT with the paraffin tests done
>>>by the DPD. Although the paraffin test on Oswald's cheek was negative
>>>for nitrates, the NA test on the same cast was *positive* for barium and
>>>antimony, two elements found in bullet primer.
>>
>>Oh? Isn't this a tad disingenious? I seem to recall that the
>>*outside* of the paraffin tested *higher* for barium than the
>>inside... you call this a "positive" test???
>>
>>(Notice that he was unwilling to state that this was due to firing a
>>rifle)
>>
>>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.
>>
>>> [see WR, 562 : "The paraffin casts of
>>>Oswald's hand and right cheek were also examined by neutron-
>>>activation analyses at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Barium
>>>and antimony were found to be present on both surfaces of all the
>>>casts and also in residues from the rifle cartridges and revolver
>>>cartridge cases. ...." and Gallagher's testimony, XV, beginning at 746]
>>>
>>> Thus it's very possible that face casts made of someone who fired
>>>Oswald's rifle would *also* test positive for barium and antimony.
>>
>>Again, if LHO didn't test positive, then the fact that others *did*,
>>even if it's barium and antimony, rather than nitrates, says alot.
>>And this was covered up by the WC.
>>
>>It took an FOIA lawsuit to get the data on these tests. Care to
>>explain the "national security" implications involved here?
Hmmm... seems that no-one is willing to take on this apparently simple
question.
Why did the Justice Dept and the FBI refuse to provide the data on the
NAA results?
>>>This is in no way a contradiction of the WR statement that rifle
>>>tests showed negative results for *nitrates* on the cheek. Different
>>>tests, different results. Weisberg said "heavy deposits" were left
>>>on the shooters' faces, but heavy deposits of WHAT? Too bad he didn't say,
>>>but since the papers came from the ERDA, I assume he must be talking about
>>>the elements Oak Ridge tested for -- barium and antimony. If so, there's
>>>no WC dishonesty here.
>>
>>Sure there is. LHO *did not* have the "heavy deposits", regardless of
>>whether it was barium and antimony or nitrates. The test shooters
>>*did*. It took a lawsuit to force this information out.
>>
>
>Where is the support for "heavy deposits"?
"Never Again!" by Weisberg, page 337. He gives *his* cites there.
>That firing a rifle would leave "heavy deposits" is vastly
>implausible, and contradicts all the standard forensics literature.
>See:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
Before I bother to check this url out, can you assure me that it is
not just another red herring?
Why did the WC fail to mention that all test shooters had heavy
deposits on their face?
Why was this data hidden, and took an FOIA lawsuit to force out?
What is the government hiding?
>But Weisberg claimed to have a secret document that flatly contradicts
>the standard forensics literature.
This is a lie. John McAdams is a liar.
Nowhere has Weisberg ever made the claim that he's holding a "secret
document".
And if it contradicts standard forensics literature, it's a funny
thing that the FBI, with the help of the Atomic Energy Commission, can
do that.
>But it can't be shown to anybody.
Another lie, of course. I've given my cites for this, and it's been
pointed out where these papers are, as well as the the agency where
I'd assume an FOIA request could be made.
John just apparently can't help himself... he's posting this on his
own group where nobody will call statements like this for what they
are - flat out lies.
And, of course, if anyone on that censored newsgroup *did* call these
statements for what they are, John can simply censor them.
>We are supposed to accept Weisberg's claim on his say-so.
Actually, it would be a simple thing for John to research this. But,
since it would probably be exculpatory for LHO, it's not something
he'd like to do.
And we understand that.
>.John
I asked John in an earlier message if he wanted to call Weisberg a
liar... I guess he decided that he did.
But that's okay... these messages hang around for a long time. And
John may find himself eating his words - should someone dig these
papers up.
GMcNally
Ben,
I don't believe that he was an expert who could make sound judgements
about scientific - NAA - tests; no.
Ken Rahn, who is an expert, discusses Weisberg's howlers on his web
site.
> So, your argument basically boils down to "I don't believe Weisberg".
> That's fine.
It's more than that. His interpretations of what the FBI tests signify
are those of somebody unqualified to assess the scientific results and
what could be reasonable inferred from them.
> But it's a simple fact that the WC hid the fact that *all* test
> shooters had "heavy deposits" on their face.
No it's not. I've shown that the WC never received the documents and
I've pointed out that the phrase "heavy deposits" was Weisberg's, not
the FBI's.
The test shooters may well have more - measured in ppm - parts per
million - of the elements barium and antimony on their cheek casts
than Oswald's did. That's because Oswald's paraffin cast was
chemically treated with diphenylamine or diphenylbenzadene in Dallas
- to test for nitrates - and then washed.
The washing removed a significant percentage of the barium and
antimony from Oswald's cast.
Therefore, Weisberg's FACTS (with the exception of the
characterization "heavy deposits") are correct, but, his
interpretation of them is incorrect.
Here's what the FBI concluded:
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.
Note the last sentence: the *significance* of the results *is not
known*.
Gallagher is a qualified expert from the FBI's crime lab; his
interpretation has merit. Weisberg was a chicken farmer and conspiracy
crank; his interpretation is worthless.
The WC reported the information it had received from qualified
experts. They deserve no criticism on this issue.
> And all the wriggling in the world isn't going to change that.
>
> >> Why is this information nowhere to be found? Who hid this fact,
> >> Jerry?
> >
> >It's not hidden. Gallagher said that the paraffin casts of the test
> >shooters showed the presence of barium and antimony - and that
> >Oswald's cast also showed their presence.
>
> All you have to do, Jerry, is quote any WC volume where they mention
> that all the test shooters had heavy deposits on their face.
I doubt there is any FBI document which says that the test shooters
had "heavy deposits" - of barium and antimony - on their faces.
Nor did the WC receive any of the test documents.
Thus, how could they be found in WC vols?
> >The difference is that Oswald's paraffin cast had been chemically
> >treated and washed in Dallas - which removed much, not all, of the two
> >elements found in primers.
> So you believe.
No, that's what the FBI lab expert testified to:
Mr. REDLICH. Are you able to give us your opinion as to the possible
effect of the washing of the paraffin casts on the analysis which you
performed? Let me rephrase the question. Did the fact that these casts
were washed prior to the neutron activation test materially alter, in
your opinion, the results of the neutron activation analysis ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. I can say that the washing did not remove all the
antimony and barium.
Mr. REDLICH. In your opinion, would the washing of these paraffin
casts remove substantial amounts of the elements barium and antimony
if they were present on those casts?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Chemical treatment and washing will remove portions of
the barium and antimony from these casts.
[His answer is 'yes': the washing materially alters the results of the
NAA.]
This was determined from test casts which were studied in connection
with these analyses, But it did not remove all the barium and
antimony.//end//
What he's concluding is that the test casts contained more Ba and Sb
than Oswald's cast because his was chemically treated and washed in
Dallas.
Read the statement carefully.
> >Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from the difference between
> >Oswald's cast and those of the subject shooters.
> So you believe. And, if so, WHY WAS THIS DATA HIDDEN?
I speculate that Hoover was embarrassed that the tests - the first
ever NAA for forensic purposes - were inconclusive. They did a lot of
work but reached no useful conclusions, either to inculpate or
exculpate Oswald.
> >As I said, the WC reported what the FBI told them: the spectroscopic
> >and NAA tests on the frags was inconclusive and, in testimony, that
> >the presence of barium and antimony on Oswald's and the test shooters
> >face proved nothing, either.
> >
> >That's what they were told; that's what they reported.
> >
> >Your claim that the WC "covered up" info on these tests is refuted by
> >the facts.
>
> Jerry, you're welcome to produce these "facts".
I've shown you the letter from Hoover to Rankin, dated July 8, 1064,
which was referred to in testimony as "Gallagher Exhibit No 1". Note
that there are no other documents or exhibits before the Commission.
Therefore, it follows that the FBI never sent the various working
documents produced by the tests.
Those are the facts.
> Are they the same sort as your claim that the WC first heard about
> these tests on July 9th?
Read the letter, which informs the WC/Rankin for the first time that
the FBI conducted NAA tests.
Thus, your claim that the WC "commissioned" these tests is false.
And your claim that the WC received the test result documentation is
false.
> You know, Jerry, the post you couldn't find the time to answer?
>
> Just to be helpful, let me repeat it here:
>
> **************
> >Read the Exhibit. It first informs the WC that in addition to
> >spectrographic tests - which the WC knew about - the FBI had done NAA
> >tests. The WC heard about this for the first time when they were
> >wrapping up their investigation - on July 9, 1964.
>
> Hmmm... then they must have been consulting a crystal ball during
> their Jan 27th meeting. How do you explain the reference to this
> topic during their executive meeting if they didn't know anything
> about this until 6 months later?
They're referring to the earlier spectrographic tests. Then on July 9,
1964, Hoover informs Rankin that in addition to them, the FBI has
performed NAA tests, which were unsuccessful and yielded nothing of
value.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0070a.htm
>
> Perhaps you need to read Weisberg, Jerry? You might get some better
> information on these sort of things.
I've read much of his work; visited him; talked at length with him;
researched his cache of documents.
He thought the FBI tests were of extreme importance; I concluded that
they were worthless.
> ****************
>
> >> And why, despite what you're trying to claim here, was this fact NOT
> >> MENTIONED by Gallagher?
> >
> >It is mentioned by Gallagher: that Oswald and the test shooters all
> >had barium and antimony, elements found in both rifle and pistol
> >primers, on their cheeks.
>
> Saying this as many times as you care to do will not make it true,
> Jerry.
Ditto for you - making claims you can't prove, which are false claims.
> >And he mentioned that Oswald's paraffin cast had been chemically
> >treated and washed which removed much of - but not all - the barium
> >and antimony on his cheek.
>
> Of course... this is obviously standard procedure on any paraffin cast
> that turns up with a negative result!! :)
False. Oswald's cast showed the presence of Ba and Sb. Just not as
much, since washing removed significant portions of it.
> >And Gallagher reported that the tests were inconclusive: which is the
> >fact that was confirmed by the HSCA which had Guinn do his own studies
> >and re-analyze the results of the FBI studies.
>
> The tests could not have been "inconclusive" based on the data that
> was reported. But keep on saying this, Jerry, someone, somewhere, may
> believe you.
All they proved was that Oswald may have fired a gun or handled a
recently fired gun on 11/22/63. That's it.
> >> >The paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek also showed deposits of barium and
> >> >antimony, but, not "heavy deposits" because the DPD had chemically
> >> >treated and washed the cast of his cheek. This removed most but not
> >> >all of the chemicals.
>
> >> Then where is the data where this was duplicated, Jerry?
> >
> >Certainly not in Weisberg's book - where he dishonestly told his
> >readers only half the story and spun it in a way that falsely
> >suggested the results were exculpatory.
>
> I think you missed my question Jerry... You asserted something, and
> can't seem to find any evidence for your statement.
>
> Now, once again, where is the data where this was duplicated, Jerry?
> If it weren't for Weisberg, we wouldn't know this information *at
> all*.
All authors have visited Weisberg and heard his diatribes about the
FBI testing.
Who else but him thinks the tests exonerate Oswald? What other author
writes at length about then - except Weisberg.
Weisberg is famous for saying that - nobody believes him.
There's a good example of what other authors - CT mostly and LN - do
not believe.
Jerry
Ben Holmes
>Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message news:<t2npiukc248efujl8...@4ax.com>...
>> On 10 Jul 2002 06:13:30 -0700, jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote:
<Major portion snipped>
>> You know, Jerry, the post you couldn't find the time to answer?
>>
>> Just to be helpful, let me repeat it here:
>>
>> **************
>> >Read the Exhibit. It first informs the WC that in addition to
>> >spectrographic tests - which the WC knew about - the FBI had done NAA
>> >tests. The WC heard about this for the first time when they were
>> >wrapping up their investigation - on July 9, 1964.
>>
>> Hmmm... then they must have been consulting a crystal ball during
>> their Jan 27th meeting. How do you explain the reference to this
>> topic during their executive meeting if they didn't know anything
>> about this until 6 months later?
>
>They're referring to the earlier spectrographic tests. Then on July 9,
>1964, Hoover informs Rankin that in addition to them, the FBI has
>performed NAA tests, which were unsuccessful and yielded nothing of
>value.
>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0070a.htm
>>
>> Perhaps you need to read Weisberg, Jerry? You might get some better
>> information on these sort of things.
>
>I've read much of his work; visited him; talked at length with him;
>researched his cache of documents.
>
>He thought the FBI tests were of extreme importance; I concluded that
>they were worthless.
>> ****************
>Jerry
It's getting really bad when Jerry will not even bother to click on a
provided citation before responding to it. Jerry apparently thinks
that this:
<Jan 27 Executive transcript>
Now, the bullet fragments are now, part of them are now,
with the Atomic Energy Commission, who are trying to determine
by a new method, a process that they have, of whether they can
relate them to various guns and the different parts, the fragment:
whether they are part of one of the bullets that was broken and
came out in part through the neck, and just what particular assem(bly)
of bullet they were part of.
They have had it for the better part of two and a-half weeks
and we ought to get an answer.
refers to the "spectrographic" tests. I guess the NAA was 'old hat'
by then...
Ben Holmes
With no additional commentary, I just wanted to post the reason that I
don't enjoy posting in a censored forum. Anyone who cares to check
can see that John has censored many of my statements, with no notice
to any readers - giving people a false impression about my argument.
On 11 Jul 2002 21:56:49 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:14:38 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org>
>wrote:
>
>>It looks like John still hasn't figured out what group I'm on.
>>
>
>Looks like Holms can't figure out what group I'm on.
>
>
>>***************************
>>On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 01:51:41 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>McAdams) wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>Sure there is. LHO *did not* have the "heavy deposits", regardless of
>>>>whether it was barium and antimony or nitrates. The test shooters
>>>>*did*. It took a lawsuit to force this information out.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Where is the support for "heavy deposits"?
>>
>>"Never Again!" by Weisberg, page 337. He gives *his* cites there.
>>
>
>And what are those?
>
>And where can we see these documents?
>
>Look, why don't you just admit that you accepted Weisberg's word on
>this, and that you haven't seen any documents to support it.
>
>If you really want to convince anybody, don't you think you need to
>produce the documents?
>
>
>>>That firing a rifle would leave "heavy deposits" is vastly
>>>implausible, and contradicts all the standard forensics literature.
>>>See:
>>>
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
>>
>>Before I bother to check this url out, can you assure me that it is
>>not just another red herring?
>>
>
>Read it. It quotes standard forensics literature.
>
>Which turns out to be very different from buff forensics literature.
>
>
>>Why did the WC fail to mention that all test shooters had heavy
>>deposits on their face?
>>
>
>How could they "fail to mention" something that never existed?
>
>
>>Why was this data hidden, and took an FOIA lawsuit to force out?
>>
>>What is the government hiding?
>>
>>
>
>You tell me. If there was some sinister purpose, then the data should
>show it.
>
>Weisberg got it, and it doesn't show any conspiracy.
>
>
>>>But Weisberg claimed to have a secret document that flatly contradicts
>>>the standard forensics literature.
>>
>>Nowhere has Weisberg ever made the claim that he's holding a "secret
>>document".
>>
>
>Then post the document.
>
>
>>And if it contradicts standard forensics literature, it's a funny
>>thing that the FBI, with the help of the Atomic Energy Commission, can
>>do that.
>>
>>>But it can't be shown to anybody.
>>
>>I've given my cites for this, and it's been
>>pointed out where these papers are, as well as the the agency where
>>I'd assume an FOIA request could be made.
>>
>
>Why don't you produce the documents?
>
>
>>
>>>We are supposed to accept Weisberg's claim on his say-so.
>>
>>Actually, it would be a simple thing for John to research this. But,
>>since it would probably be exculpatory for LHO, it's not something
>>he'd like to do.
>>
>
>I'm expected to travel all the way to Maryland just to prove that
>Weisberg misquoted something or quoted it out of context?
>
>
>>And we understand that.
>>
>>
>>I asked John in an earlier message if he wanted to call Weisberg a
>>liar... I guess he decided that he did.
>>
>
>I didn't call him a liar. I think he, like a lot of buffs, are just
>too quick to interpret things in a warped way if it serves to let LHO
>off.
>
>
>>But that's okay... these messages hang around for a long time. And
>>John may find himself eating his words - should someone dig these
>>papers up.
>
>
>Then go dig them up.
>
>.John
O.H. LEE
Hello Ben. You are providing a great service with your posts on this topic.
Keep on keepin' on.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
Ritchie Linton
++++
No.They never do that.This is a NG, where such comments above are
taken as being 'conversation enders'.The commentators above already
know that you will not yourself actually go to Hood College and review
the scrupulous files now maintained there in proof in order to produce
the atual ducument that Weisberg cites.Thats why Weisberg actually
fought with Hood College about the importance of them accepting his
donation=he knew the importance of his source documentation when he
made his donative, even if Hood Colege did not.He won that arguement.I
even gave a letter in support of that donative.
Now,you would have to go to Hood Coolege in Maryland to verify that
what Harold said about the record was true as above.FWIW, I was in
Wiesbergs basement a few times seeing original records in support.
RJ
Ben Holmes
Appreciate the comments... While I'm no expert... I'm a good reader,
and I have a critical mind.
The important thing to remember, IMO, is that if you wish to take the
easy road, and just "go along" with the "experts", all you have to do
is accept the WC.
But if you don't mind doing a little thinking on your own, and don't
automatically accept information simply because an "expert" gave it,
then CT is often the point we all reach.
Just the simple observation that others have often made, and that has
never been seriously explained will make you think long and hard about
what side of the issue to come down on:
"If the government has nothing to hide, why do they work so hard at
hiding all this information?"