David Von Pein Lies On His Website...

[Ben Holmes]

Ben Holmes:
>> Then you stand corrected, and you'll immediately remove that section from your website, since it's clearly *YOUR* mistake, right?

(David was caught in a lie about the cheek cast, which was tested with the NAA test, and which David *STILL* refuses to debate.)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

>I'm not sure the original 2009 quote is a "mistake" on my part at all. I don't know you WEREN'T referring to the negative paraffin result when you said "cheek cast". You never said "NAA" test. Why would I assume you were talking ONLY about NAA there?

I corrected you immediately the moment I saw your confusion - yet you still retain that false information on your website.

An honest man would remove incorrect information immediately.

But, as you've proven time and time again; you're not honest, are you David?

[David Von Pein]

Yes, I am very honest. Thank you. You, OTOH, I'm not so sure about, Ben. (To put it kindly.) :-)

BTW / FWIW....

After looking into the "NAA & Paraffin" issues in much more detail since 2009, it now has become quite clear that it doesn't really matter whether Ben was referring to the "Paraffin/Nitrate" test when he said what he said in 2009, or whether he was referring to the "NAA/Barium/Antimony" test (which he assures me he was referring to)....because he is still dead wrong no matter WHICH of the two tests Holmes was actually referring to when he said this in '09 (Ben's bad spelling intact)....

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

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/avLOV6WimrE/ux5HBY9iJLAJ

As I have explained to Ben previously, the reason it doesn't matter which type of "cheek" test Ben was talking about back in '09 is because it blatantly obvious that NEITHER type of cheek test (NAA or Paraffin) provides "physical proof" that Lee Oswald "didn't fire a rifle that day [11/22/63]".

The NAA tests were even POSITIVE for the presence of the only two things the test tests for---barium & antimony. And yet Ben, incredibly, seems to think that **the presence of two things that could be expected to be on Oswald's face after firing a gun** is actually evidence that Oswald "didn't fire a rifle that day" at all!

Somebody call an ambulance! Ben is suffering from "Black is White" disease! He needs treatment asap!

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

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 7:15:36 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 10:08:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Ben Holmes:
> > >> Then you stand corrected, and you'll immediately remove that section from your website, since it's clearly *YOUR* mistake, right?
> >
> > (David was caught in a lie about the cheek cast, which was tested with the NAA test, and which David *STILL* refuses to debate.)

Why the cowardice, David?

> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > >I'm not sure the original 2009 quote is a "mistake" on my part at all. I don't know you WEREN'T referring to the negative paraffin result when you said "cheek cast". You never said "NAA" test. Why would I assume you were talking ONLY about NAA there?
> >
> > I corrected you immediately the moment I saw your confusion - yet you still retain that false information on your website.
> >
> > An honest man would remove incorrect information immediately.
> >
> > But, as you've proven time and time again; you're not honest, are you David?
>
> Yes, I am very honest. Thank you. You, OTOH, I'm not so sure about, Ben. (To put it kindly.) :-)

And yet, you KNOW false information still remains on your website.

And you're COMPLETELY unable to document your claim that I'm not honest... you cannot quote ANYTHING I've said that you can contradict with an unimpeachable citation.

Do you think you're fooling anyone?

> BTW / FWIW....
>
> After looking into the "NAA & Paraffin" issues in much more detail since 2009, it now has become quite clear that it doesn't really matter whether Ben was referring to the "Paraffin/Nitrate" test when he said what he said in 2009, or whether he was referring to the "NAA/Barium/Antimony" test (which he assures me he was referring to)....because he is still dead wrong no matter WHICH of the two tests Holmes was actually referring to when he said this in '09 (Ben's bad spelling intact)....

You're lying again, David.

You cannot cite for your claim...

You refuse to address the real issue... common ordinary water is, as is known, a poison that will kill a person.

David cannot deny it.

Yet this highlights David's mistake to any thinking person...

> "The cheek caste [sic] of LHO. Physical proof that he didn't fire a rifle that day." -- Ben Holmes; June 12, 2009 AD

Yep... it's STILL physical proof, and it's STILL the evidence that shows he didn't fire a rifle that day.

David STILL refuses to cite for his counterclaim - that the NAA cheek cast results show that Oswald fired a rifle.

The fact that he still refuses to do so tells the tale, doesn't it?

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/avLOV6WimrE/ux5HBY9iJLAJ
>
> As I have explained to Ben previously, the reason it doesn't matter which type of "cheek" test Ben was talking about back in '09 is because it blatantly obvious that NEITHER type of cheek test (NAA or Paraffin) provides "physical proof" that Lee Oswald "didn't fire a rifle that day [11/22/63]".

You're lying again, David.

You KNOW about Guinn's tests - you KNOW that the paraffin tests can't compare with the NAA - YET YOU'RE WILLING TO BLATANTLY LIE.

Why is that, David?

Tell us what Guinn found when *HE* tested people who'd provably fired a Mannlicher Carcano.

And you'd better cite too - since you've already provably lied about this.

> The NAA tests were even POSITIVE for the presence of the only two things the test tests for---barium & antimony.

You are, of course; provably wrong.
http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/naa_overview.html

Are you honest enough to retract your mistaken assertion?

> And yet Ben, incredibly, seems to think that **the presence of two things that could be expected to be on Oswald's face after firing a gun** is actually evidence that Oswald "didn't fire a rifle that day" at all!

Yep. Absolutely true.

Are you honest enough to publicly state what reason Gallagher gave for the "positive" result?

The "positive" result THAT HE WAS COMPLETELY UNWILLING TO STATE WAS CAUSED BY OSWALD FIRING A RIFLE...

You'll refuse to answer, or answer dishonestly, of course.

Because an HONEST answer demonstrates your assertion to be false.

You're DESPERATE to claim that finding barium & antimony is equivalent to finding the proof that someone fired a rifle - BUT YOU **KNOW** YOU'RE LYING.

> Somebody call an ambulance! Ben is suffering from "Black is White" disease! He needs treatment asap!

Ad hominem is merely the proof that you *KNOW* you lost the debate.



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

[David Von Pein]

Dead wrong (as per Holmes' norm). I've never once *ever* claimed any such thing and you know it. Just the opposite, in fact. How many times do I need to repeat this comment before it sinks in to your head of solid cement?....

"But the main point is --- Neither test (paraffin or NAA) proves Lee Harvey Oswald didn't fire a gun on 11/22/63. And, by the same token, neither test proves he DID fire a gun." -- DVP

[Ben Holmes]

Then you'll retract your lie that my statement isn't correct?

You can't have it both ways, you know.

When you claim my statement is incorrect, THEN *YOU* ARE CLAIMING THE OPPOSITE IS CORRECT.

I'm just going to keep right on pointing out your lies and cowardice.

Until you stop posting lies about me on your private websites, you're fair game in these public forums.

[David Von Pein]

Boy, are you stupid.